^^^SifOF?R?Ncog^ 


BS 
Ji5S5 


STUDIES  IN  MARK'S  GOSPEL 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

KZW  YORK  •    BOSTON   •    CHICAGO    •  DALLAS 
ATLANTA    •    SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON    •   BOMBAY    •  CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


STUDIES  IN  MARK^S  GOSPEL 


UN  12  1919 


^^GIGAL 


Mliy^ 


v^ 


BY 


PROFESSOR  A.  T.  ROBERTSON,  M.A.,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

CHAIR  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETATION,  SOUTHERN 
BAPTIST  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  LOUISVILLE,  KY. 


"THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  GOSPEL  OF 
JESUS  CHRIST  THE  SON  OF  GOD  " 


Nrm  fork 
THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

1919 

All  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  igi8,  by 
The  Moody  Bible  Institute  of  Chicago,  The  Sunday  School 
Times  Company,  The  University  of  Chicago,  F.  M.  Barton, 
George  H.  Doran  Company,  Funk  and  Wagnalls  Company. 


Copyright,  1919 

By  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  April,    1919 


THE  MEMORY  OF 

CHARLOTTE 

MY  RADIANT  DAUGHTER 


PREFACE 

The  chapters  of  this  book  first  appeared  as  articles  in 
various  pubHcations.  Credit  is  given  in  each  instance  and 
thanks  are  hereby  returned  to  the  several  publishers  for 
permission  to  repubhsh  them  in  book  form.  The  chapters 
have  all  been  carefully  revised  and,  in  some  instances, 
changed  to  suit  the  present  purpose.  They  cover  many 
aspects  of  the  Gospel  without  attempting  full  and  formal 
exposition.  It  is  hoped  that  by  this  method  a  wider  circle 
of  readers  may  be  reached  than  would  be  wilHng  to  follow 
detailed  comment.  This  Gospel  has  the  charm  of  two  per- 
sonaHties  who  contributed  to  its  contents,  Peter  and  John 
Mark.  Both  were  vivacious  and  versatile  and  have  pre- 
served the  portrait  of  Jesus  with  the  freshness  of  the  morn- 
ing. Modern  criticism  of  the  Gospels  finds  in  Mark's  book 
the  foundation  (along  with  the  Logia  of  Jesus)  of  the  other 
three.  It  is  impossible  to  overestimate  the  critical  and 
historical  worth  of  the  Second  Gospel  which  is  really  the 
First  in  order  of  time.  Professor  J.  Rendel  Harris  in  a  recent 
article  comments  on  the  eternal  "Youth  of  Jesus"  as  one 
of  the  charms  that  the  Master  has  for  mystics.  In  this 
Gospel  Jesus  fascinates  us  with  the  vigor  of  young  manhood 
and  the  glory  of  the  Godhead.  The  present  volume  turns 
the  picture  round  so  that  it  may  be  seen  from  this  angle 
and  from  that.  But  the  eye  of  Jesus  holds  us  enthralled 
all  the  while  with  his  pity  and  his  power. 

A.  T.  Robertson 
Louisville,  Ky. 


vu 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

Chapter  Page 

I.  The  Making  oe  John  Mark i 

II.  The  Date  of  Mark's  Gospel 9 

III.  Mark's  Gospel  and  the  Synoptic  Problem 19 

IV.  Peter's  Influence  on  Mark's  Gospel 35 

V.  The  Miraculous  Element  in  Mark's  Gospel 47 

VI.  The  Christ  of  Mark's  Gospel 62 

VII.  Jesus  in  Mark's  Gospel  the  Exemplar  for  Preach- 
ers    79 

VEIL  The  Parables  of  Jesus  in  Mark's  Gospel 97 

IX.  The  Teaching  of  Jesus  in  Mark's  Gospel 108 

X.  Aramaic  and  Latin  Terms  in  Mark's  Gospel 122 

XI.  The  Disputed  Close  of  Mark's  Gospel 128 


STUDIES  IN  MARK'S  GOSPEL 


STUDIES  IN  MARK'S  GOSPEL 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  MAKING   OF  JOHN  MARK  ^ 
"Taking  with  them  John  whose  surname  was  Mark."    Acts  12:25. 

John  Mark,  the  author  of  the  Second  Gospel,  has  absolutely 
nothing  to  say  about  himseK  in  his  Gospel,  unless  there  is  a 
veiled  reference  in  14:51/.,  where  we  have  the  elusive  figure 
of  "a  certain  young  man"  who  had  followed  Jesus  to  Geth- 
semane  and  who  fled,  leaving  his  loose  nightrobe,  when  the 
officers  arrested  the  Master.  This  may  be  John  Mark,  the 
son  of  Mary,  in  whose  house  the  disciples  met  at  a  later  time 
(Acts  12:12).  If  so,  it  was  at  his  mother's  house  that  Jesus 
partook  of  the  last  Passover  meal.  But  Papias  says  that 
Mark  was  not  a  personal  follower  of  Jesus. 

I.  Glimpses  of  Mark. — However,  we  do  get  a  good  many 
glimpses  of  John  Mark  in  the  Acts  and  in  Paul's  Epistles. 
By  means  of  these  we  can  form  some  idea  of  the  young  man 
who  performed  such  a  great  work  in  the  writing  of  the  Gospel 
that  lies  at  the  basis  of  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  according 
to  the  almost  unanimous  opinion  of  modern  scholars.  "  There 
is  no  critical  position  more  generally  recognized  than  that 
St.  Mark  forms  the  groundwork  of  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Luke."  ^  For  every  reason,  therefore,  modern  Christians  are 
interested  in  Mark.  It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  chapter 
to  discuss  the  sources  of  Mark's  information,  though  Papias 

^  The  Sunday  School  Times,  May  4,  igi8, 

2  Nolloth,  The  Rise  of  the  Christian  Religion,  191 7,  p.  12. 


2  STUDIES  IN  MARK  S  GOSPEL 

is  almost  certainly  correct  in  his  statement,  on  the  authority 
of  the  Elder  (the  Presbyter  John,  probably  the  same  as  the 
Apostle  John),  that  Mark  was  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of 
Simon  Peter  and  wrote  down  Peter's  discourses  about  our 
Lord.  Luke  tells  us  (1:1-4)  that  he  made  use  of  both  oral 
and  written  sources  (first-hand  sources,  eye-witnesses — 
avTOTTTOL — and  accurate).  There  is  no  reason  to  think  that 
Mark  confined  himseK  to  what  Peter  said,  when  he  had 
access  to  other  disciples  also  who  flocked  to  his  mother's 
house  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  12:12).  But  in  this  chapter  we  are 
the  rather  concerned  with  Mark  himself  and  some  of  the 
things  that  went  into  the  making  of  this  useful  servant  of 
Christ. 

2.  Not  a  Man  of  the  Highest  Gifts. — There  are  undoubted 
advantages  in  being  a  man  of  supreme  genius  like  Paul  or 
John  the  Evangehst.  But  these  men  are  few  and  the  great 
majority  must  take  a  lower  place.  All  the  evidence  goes  to 
show  that  Mark  was  a  young  man  of  good,  but  not  unusual, 
native  gifts.  Most  of  the  work  of  the  world  is  done  by  men  of 
just  this  type.  The  love  of  work  is  after  all  a  form  of  genius, 
better  than  mere  brilliance  of  intellect.  At  first  Mark  did 
not  seem  to  have  this  application  to  hard  tasks.  He  did  not 
quickly  find  himself  and  he  seemed  fickle. 

3.  On  Making  Mistakes. — He  was  the  kind  of  man  to  be 
the  victim  of  moods  and  of  whims,  and  so  to  make  mistakes. 
Now  mistakes  are  not  a  desirable  asset  in  any  man's  char- 
acter, though  no  one  of  us  is  wholly  free  from  them.  It  is 
human  to  err  and  we  stumble  in  spite  of  all  that  we  can  do. 
Least  of  all  is  the  habit  of  making  mistakes  to  be  cultivated. 
Some  mistakes  are  more  or  less  venial,  but  others  are  fatal. 
At  Shepherdsville,  Ky.,  December,  1917,  the  conductor  of  a 
local  train  that  was  taking  the  siding  failed  to  send  back  the 
flagman,  though  his  train  was  behind  time.  The  engineer 
on  the  Louisville  and  Nashville  ''Cannonball"  for  New 
Orleans  failed  to  stop  as  the  signal  called  for  him  to  do  and 
took  the  chance  of  going  by.    He  ran  his  train  into  the  local 


THE  MAKING   OF  JOHN  MARK  3 

and  killed  forty-eight  helpless  men,  women,  and  children  in 
a  minute  of  time.  Some  mistakes  can  be  overcome.  Some 
of  us  learn  by  our  mistakes  and  make  them  stepping-stones 
to  God.  John  Mark  had  a  great  experience  that  affected  his 
whole  career. 

4.  Mark's  Good  Start. — His  youthful  environment  was 
good,  for  at  his  mother's  home  he  met  constantly  the  leading 
spirits  of  early  Christianity.  Here  were  to  be  seen  frequently 
the  twelve  apostles,  James  the  brother  of  Jesus,  Barnabas 
the  cousin  of  Mark,  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  the  other 
women,  Philip  the  deacon-evangelist,  and  many  others  whose 
names  we  do  not  know.  It  is  a  great  education  for  young 
people  to  Hve  in  a  home  where  the  great  and  good  of  earth 
meet.  Mark's  mother  was  clearly  a  woman  of  parts,  and 
left  her  impress  upon  her  boy,  who  was  to  bring  her  undying 
fame.  At  first  Mark  was  the  son  of  Mary,  but  by  and  by 
Mary  was  known  as  the  mother  of  John  Mark.  This  was  as 
she  would  have  wished  it  to  be,  as  any  mother  wishes  it  to  be 
who  finds  her  jewels  in  her  children. 

Mark  was  fortunate  also  in  the  love  and  friendship  of 
Barnabas,  who  was  always  on  the  lookout  for  young  men 
whom  he  could  help.  Paul  was  one  of  those  whom  Barnabas 
befriended  at  Jerusalem  when  all  the  disciples  looked  askance 
at  this  new  sheep  in  the  flock  which  had  so  lately  ravened  as 
a  wolf.  They  fancied  that  they  could  still  see  the  wolf's 
ears  beneath  the  sheep's  clothing  (Acts  9:26/.).  So  Barnabas 
took  along  John  Mark  to  Antioch  when  he  and  Saul  returned 
thither  from  Jerusalem  (Acts  12:25).  Mark  may  not  have 
taken  the  enterprise  very  seriously.  At  any  rate  the  Holy 
Spirit  called  upon  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  go  upon  the  first 
great  campaign  to  win  the  Gentiles  to  Christ  (Acts  13:1-3). 
The  Greek  church  at  Antioch  rose  to  the  occasion  and  gave 
their  blessing  to  the  movement. 

It  was  for  this  hour  that  Saul  had  longed  and  looked, 
since  Christ  set  him  apart  to  go  "far  hence  to  the  Gentiles," 
though  he  had  by  no  means  been  idle  during  the  intervening 


4  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

years.  But  even  so  the  company  went  out  with  Barnabas 
still  the  leader,  as  he  had  brought  Saul  from  Tarsus  to  An- 
tioch  (Acts  11:25).  But  John  Mark  seems  to  have  been 
taken  along  in  some  sort  of  subordinate  position  that  is  not 
made  clear  by  the  reference  in  Acts  13:5:  *'And  they  had  also 
John  as  their  attendant"  {vir-qpir-qv) .  The  word  means 
"under-rower"  on  a  ship,  down  below  the  ranks  of  upper- 
rowers.  It  was  sometimes  employed  for  the  synagogue  min- 
ister or  attendant,  as  in  Luke  4:20.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
know  precisely  what  Mark  was  expected  to  do.  He  may 
have  been  advance  agent  to  arrange  about  the  hotels,  meet- 
ing places,  means  of  travel,  etc.  He  may  have  done  the 
baptizing  and  helped  talk  to  the  inquirers  (the  catechumens). 
Clearly  his  work  was  subordinate  to  that  of  Barnabas  and 
Saul.  But  many  another  young  man  has  had  his  opportunity 
by  beginning  in  a  humble  way.  Men  prove  themselves 
worthy  of  bigger  things  by  doing  well  the  smaller  task  in  hand. 
5.  Mark^s  Failure  in  a  Crisis. — ^It  seems  clear  that  Mark 
had  no  idea  of  the  real  greatness  of  Paul  at  this  juncture. 
To  his  thinking,  Barnabas  was  the  greater  man,  and  he  may 
have  resented  the  sudden  leadership  of  Paul  at  Paphos.  It 
was  now  ''Paul  and  his  company"  (Acts  13:13)  that  set 
sail  from  Paphos  and  that  came  to  Perga  in  Pamphylia.  It 
was  at  Perga  that  matters  came  to  a  crisis  with  Mark.  He 
may  have  been  a  bit  irritated  at  his  subordinate  place,  and 
all  the  more  now  that  Paul  had  displaced  Barnabas  as  the 
head  of  the  party.  It  seems  clear  that  something  happened 
at  Perga  that  Luke  has  not  recorded.  Ramsay  thinks  that 
Paul  had  an  attack  of  malaria  at  this  coast  town.  Mark 
may  also  have  been  the  victim  of  the  mosquito.  Depression 
seized  Mark,  who  may  not  have  cared  to  face  the  perils  of 
rivers  and  perils  of  robbers  that  lay  ahead  of  the  party  on 
the  high  tablelands  of  Pisidia  and  Lycaonia  (the  southern 
part  of  the  province  of  Galatia).  Paul  seemed  bent  on 
pushing  on  in  this  campaign,  and  Barnabas  stood  by  him. 
Mark  had  apparently  had  no  specific  call  from  the  Holy 


THE  MAKING  OF  JOHN  MARK  5 

Spirit  for  this  enterprise,  and  so  felt  less  responsibility  in 
the  matter,  though  he  had  joined  hands  with  the  company. 

At  any  rate,  at  Perga,  ''John  departed  from  them  and 
returned  to  Jerusalem"  (Acts  13:13).  In  this  incidental 
way  Luke  notes  the  defection  of  Mark.  He  did  not  go  to 
Antioch,  where  it  would  be  embarrassing  to  make  explana- 
tions, but  to  his  home  in  Jerusalem.  Probably  Mark  felt 
that  the  reasons  for  his  course  were  excellent  and  fully  jus- 
tified his  conduct.  It  is  not  difficult  to  find  reasons  in  plenty 
for  not  doing  a  hard  and  disagreeable  task.  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas faced  the  dangers  ahead  and  pressed  on,  and,  "passing 
through  from  Perga,  came  to  Antioch  of  Pisidia  "  (Acts  13  :i4), 
and  made  this  journey  one  of  the  epochal  events  in  history, 
for  it  led  to  the  evangelization  of  the  Graeco-Roman  world 
and  the  liberation  of  Christianity,  after  a  struggle,  from  the 
fetters  that  the  Judaizers  tried  to  impose  upon  it  (Acts  11: 
1-18;  15:1-35).  One  of  the  tests  of  a  man's  fiber  is  to  know 
when  a  crisis  has  come.  Mark  took  his  defection  rather 
lightly,  but  Paul  took  it  much  to  heart. 

6.  PauVs  Indignation  at  Mark's  Conduct. — ^The  explosion 
came  about  in  a  rather  incidental  way  after  the  return  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas  and  after  their  victory  over  the  Judaizers 
at  the  Jerusalem  conference.  The  Judaizers  were  alarmed 
at  the  rapid  spread  of  Christianity  among  the  Gentiles  as 
a  result  of  this  tour  and  challenged  the  validity  of  the  work 
of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  demanding  that  these  Gentile  Chris- 
tians become  Jews  (Acts  15:1/.).  Thus  one  of  the  greatest 
issues  in  the  history  of  Christianity  was  sprung.  To  yield 
was  to  make  Christianity  a  sect  of  current  Pharisaic  Judaism. 
It  was  the  real  spiritual  Israel,  and  Paul  and  Barnabas  were 
not  going  to  allow  such  a  calamity  to  befall  the  Gentile 
churches  as  these  Pharisaic  Christians  from  Jerusalem 
planned.  Peter,  James,  and  John  (Gal.  2:1-10)  stood  by 
Paul  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  15:4-29)  so  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
returned  to  Antioch  in  triumph  (Acts  15:30-35).  Nothing 
is  said  of  Mark,  but  it  is  quite  possible  that  he  at  this  juncture 


was  indifferent  to  Paul's  contention.  Indeed,  later  Peter 
came  to  Antioch  and  followed  Paul  and  Barnabas  in  prac- 
ticing social  equality  with  the  Greek  Christians,  and  then 
drew  back  (Gal.  2:11/.),  because  some  Judaizers  from  Jeru- 
salem threatened  more  trouble  to  Peter  (cf.  Acts  11:1-18), 
claiming  that  James  was  against  the  present  attitude  of 
Peter  on  this  phase  of  the  question.  Peter's  defection  in- 
duced ''even  Barnabas"  to  desert  Paul  in  this  "dissimula- 
tion" (hypocrisy). 

It  is  possible  that  Mark's  coolness  towards  Paul  may  have 
caused  Barnabas  to  weaken  for  the  moment  and  to  leave 
Paul  in  the  lurch.  At  any  rate  Paul  rebuked  Peter  and 
Barnabas  and  won  them  back  to  his  side.  The  time  came 
when  Paul  proposed  to  Barnabas  that  they  "return  now  and 
visit  the  brethren  in  every  city  wherein  we  proclaimed  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  and  see  how  they  fare"  (Acts  15:36). 
Barnabas  was  more  than  willing,  but  suggested  that  they 
take  along  with  them  John  Mark.  Instantly  the  long 
smoldering  indignation  of  Paul  burst  forth.  "But  Paul 
thought  not  good  to  take  with  them  him  who  withdrew  from 
them  from  Pamphylia,  and  went  not  with  them  to  the 
work  "  (Acts  15 :38).  Paul's  word  for  "  withdrew  "  (dTroo-Tavra) 
is  Uterally  "apostatized."  And,  then,  he  did  not  stick  to 
the  work.  He  flickered  in  a  crisis.  Paul  had  no  intention 
of  taking  Mark  back  again  over  the  same  ground.  The 
mosquitoes  were  still  at  Perga.  Luke  uses  the  imperfect 
tense  (riiLov)  of  Paul's  stubborn  resistance  to  the  plan  of 
Barnabas.  We  are  not  told  more  of  the  conversation,  but 
Luke  adds  that  "there  arose  a  sharp  contention"  (ira/oo|vo-- 
/w,os);  the  word  is  our  "paroxysm".  Probably  sharp  things 
were  said,  so  sharp  that  "  they  parted  asunder  one  from  the 
other."  Paul  cared  too  much  for  the  work  to  risk  a  young 
man  who  would  not  stand  true  when  the  pinch  came.  He 
wished  no  deserters  and  no  "slackers"  with  him. 

7.  Mark's  Second  Chance  with  Barnabas. — Barnabas  prac- 
ticed the  Gospel  of  the  second  chance,  and  was  determined 


THE  MAKING  OF  JOHN  MARK  7 

that  his  cousin,  John  Mark,  should  have  another  opportunity 
to  show  what  he  could  do.  One  is  bound  to  admit  that 
sympathy  goes  with  Barnabas  in  this  position,  however 
much  judgment  may  be  with  Paul.  Barnabas  took  Mark 
with  him  to  Cyprus,  his  old  home  and  possibly  the  original 
home  of  Mark's  family.  Paul  went  his  way  with  Silas  back 
to  the  scene  of  the  first  tour  in  Lycaonia  and  Pisidia.  Paul 
and  Barnabas  agreed  to  disagree.  Luke  follows  the  fortunes 
of  Paul,  so  that  we  know  nothing  more  of  Barnabas  and 
Mark.  We  may  be  sure  that  Barnabas  would  demand  that 
Mark  be  true  this  time.  It  is  possible  that  this  sharp  rebuff 
by  Paul  did  much  to  awaken  Mark  to  a  proper  realization  of 
his  responsibility.  Once  more  we  may  note  how  fortunate 
Mark  was  in  having  a  friend  like  Barnabas,  with  the  patience 
and  the  love  to  help  him  through  his  time  of  probation. 
Some  of  the  early  writers  say  that  Mark  went  on  to  Egypt 
finally  and  did  a  great  work  there,  but  of  this  we  know 
nothing  definite.  We  do  know  how  wise  and  gentle  was 
Barnabas,  the  son  of  consolation. 

8.  Making  Good  with  Simon  Peter. — Peter  himself  bears 
witness  to  this  fact  in  his  first  Epistle  (i  Pet.  5:13)  when  he 
speaks  of  "Mark  my  son"  as  with  him  "in  Babylon"  (prob- 
ably Rome).  The  early  writers  testify  that  Mark  was  with 
Peter  in  Rome,  that  he  was  Peter's  interpreter  or  dragoman, 
translating  his  Aramaic  discourses  into  the  current  Greek. 
It  is  the  common  tradition  that  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  with 
the  discourses  of  Peter  as  the  main  source.  Some  say  that 
he  wrote  at  Peter's  dictation,  others  with  his  approval, 
others  after  his  death.  But  the  testimony  is  unanimous, 
and  internal  evidence  confirms  it,  that  Mark  faithfully  pre- 
served the  substance  of  Peter's  discourses  about  the  Lord 
Jesus.  Thus  under  Peter's  tutelage  he  rendered  a  service 
of  supreme  worth  for  all  the  ages.  He  kept  the  life-like 
touches  of  Peter's  speeches  and  lets  us  see  Jesus  with  Peter's 
keen  eyes. 

9.  A  Comfort  to  Paul. — It  is  good  to  know  that  Paul  rec- 


8 

ognized  that  Mark  had  made  good  and  could  now  be  de- 
pended on  to  do  his  work.  It  is  not  incredible  that  Paul 
may  have  read  Mark's  Gospel  while  in  Rome  during  his 
first  imprisonment.  We  know  that  Mark  was  here  with 
Paul  part  of  the  time  and  that  Paul  was  pleased  with  him. 
''Aristarchus  my  fellow-prisoner  saluteth  you,  and  Mark, 
the  cousin  of  Barnabas  (touching  whom  ye  have  received 
commandments;  if  he  come  unto  you,  receive  him)"  (Col. 
4:10).  In  the  loneliness  of  the  last  imprisonment  in  Rome 
Paul  begs  Timothy,  who  is  now  in  Asia,  to  come  and  "  take 
Mark,  and  bring  him  with  thee;  for  he  is  useful  to  me  for 
ministering"  (2  Tim.  4:11).  Paul  revised  his  judgment 
about  Mark  after  he  had  noticed  the  change  in  his  conduct. 
Probably  Paul  refers  here  to  his  experience  with  Mark  in 
Rome  (Col.  4:10).  Paul  was  only  too  glad  to  give  praise 
instead  of  blame. 

Mark  is  a  comfort  to  many  a  young  man  who  has  made 
a  serious  blunder  in  life.  Take  heart  and  wake  up  to  the 
stern  reahties  of  duty.  The  war  times  brought  us  all  up 
with  a  jerk.  The  main  things  of  life  called  for  our  energy,  and 
we  learned  to  hold  ourselves  to  the  main  tasks.  Most  of  us 
make  slips.  Most  of  us  are  not  greatly  gifted.  But  all  of  us 
can  make  our  Hves  count  for  God  by  sticking  steadily  to  the 
work  to  which  we  are  called  and  to  which  we  have  put  our 
hands.  It  is  doubtless  true  that  Mark's  mistake  at  Perga 
and  the  sharp  contention  at  Antioch  served  to  rouse  him  to 
genuine  exertion.  Strenuous  application  took  the  place  of 
indifference,  and  the  result  was  victory. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  DATE  OF  MARK's  GOSPEL  ^ 

"Forasmuch  as  many  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  con- 
cerning those  matters  which  have  been  fulfilled  among  us."    Luke  i:i. 

I.  Efect  of  the  Two-Document  Hypothesis. — Already  the 
interest  of  the  world  of  New  Testament  scholarship  has 
been  centered  upon  the  Second  Gospel  as  one  of  the  Two 
Documents  (Q  and  Mark)  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke  for 
the  major  part  of  their  Gospels.  Critics  are  not  quite  un- 
animous on  this  solution  of  the  Synoptic  Problem,  for  Zahn 
still  insists  that  the  Aramaic  Matthew  precedes  Mark  ^  as 
his  interpretation  of  what  Irenaeus  and  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria say.  But  the  majority  of  modern  scholars  agree 
with  Sanday,  who  says  pointedly:  "We  assume  what  is 
commonly  known  as  the  'Two-Document  Hypothesis.'"^ 
In  either  case,  whether  one  follows  Sanday  (as  I  do)  on  this 
point  or  Zahn,  the  date  of  Mark  is  still  a  matter  of  debate 
and  of  importance. 

The  general  effect  of  the  "Two-Document  Hypothesis" 
has  been  to  push  Mark  back  to  a  comparatively  early  date. 
If  we  admit  the  use  of  Mark  by  Luke,  this  seems  necessary. 
Even  Bartlet  admits  this,  though  he  does  not  concur  with 
the  view  that  Q  was  so  used:  "That  our  Mark  was  used  in 
the  two  other  Synoptic  Gospels  I  firmly  beheve,  and  so  far 
agree  with  the  current  documentary  hypothesis.  On  the 
other  hand,  I  cannot  see  that  the  common  use  of  a  second 

*  The  Expositor  (London),  April,  19 18. 

2  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  transl.,  1909,  vol.  ii,  pp.  394  flf. 

2  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem ,  191 1,  p.  2. 

9 


lO 

document,  whether  by  Matthew  and  Luke  alone,  or  by- 
Mark  also,  is  probable."  ^ 

2.  The  Date  of  Luke's  Gospel. — The  argument  is  therefore 
part  of  a  chain,  the  Hnks  of  which  hang  together.  Harnack 
admits  that  the  reasonable  explanation  for  the  close  of  Acts 
is  that  events  had  at  that  time  proceeded  no  further.  "We 
are  accordingly  left  with  the  result:  that  the  concluding 
verses  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  taken  in  conjunction 
with  the  absence  of  any  reference  in  the  book  to  the  result 
of  the  trial  of  St.  Paul  and  to  his  martyrdom,  make  it  in 
the  highest  degree  probable  that  the  work  was  written  at  a 
time  when  St,  Paul's  trial  in  Rome  had  not  yet  come  to  an 
end."  ^  After  a  survey  of  the  argument  of  Wellhausen  that 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  had  taken  place  before  Luke 
21:20-24  was  written,  Harnack  says:  ''Hence  it  is  proved 
that  it  is  altogether  wrong  to  say  that  the  eschatological 
passages  force  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Third  Gospel 
was  written  after  the  year  70  a.  d."  Since  Luke  wrote  his 
Gospel  before  the  Acts,  as  he  himself  says  (Acts  1:1),  the 
first  question  is  the  date  of  Paul's  release  from  his  first  Ro- 
man imprisonment.  It  is  not  certain  that  Nero  passed  on 
the  case  or  that  it  came  to  trial.  But,  whether  Paul  was 
dismissed  without  trial  or  set  free  after  trial,  it  could  not 
be  later  than  a.  d.  63.  Ramsay  places  it  "towards  the  end 
of  A.  D.  61."  ^  In  any  case  we  may  allow  some  three  years 
(two  in  Rome  and  the  year  of  the  voyage)  for  the  completion 
of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  in  Caesarea  where  Paul  (with  Luke) 
spent  two  years  (Acts  24:27).  This  was  about  56-58  a.  d. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  date  the  Gospel  of  Luke  so  long  before 
and  to  place  its  composition  in  Caesarea,  though  this  is  the 
natural  thing  to  do,  for,  while  in  Palestine,  Luke  had  the 
time  and  the  opportunity  to  procure  the  data  used  by  him 
(Luke   1:1-4).     Luke  may  have  completed  his  Gospel  in 

*  The  Sources  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  p.  315  in  Oxford  Studies. 

2  Date  of  the  Acts  and  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  transl.,  191 1,  p.  99. 

2  St.  Paid  the  Traveller  and  the  Roman  Citizen,  p.  357. 


THE  DATE   OF  MARK's   GOSPEL  II 

Rome.  This  is  the  conclusion  of  Harnack:  '^It  now  seems 
to  be  estabHshed  beyond  question  that  both  books  of  this 
great  historical  writer  were  written  while  St.  Paul  was  still 
aHve."  1 

It  is  clear  that  if  this  Hne  of  argument  is  correct,  Mark's 
Gospel  must  come  not  later  than  60  a.  d.  and  probably 
earlier.  Wellhausen  ^  admits  that  it  is  not  later  than  the 
sixth  decade  a.  d.  Harnack  ^  concurs.  It  is  here  assumed, 
of  course,  that  Luke  wrote  both  Gospel  and  Acts.  Harnack  ^ 
agrees  with  the  judgment  of  Zahn:  ^'Hobart^  has  proved 
for  every  one  who  can  at  all  appreciate  proof  that  the  author 
of  the  Lukan  work  was  a  man  practiced  in  the  scientific 
language  of  Greek  medicine — in  short,  a  Greek  physician."  ® 

3.  The  Date  of  Q. — If  we  seek  the  earliest  probable  date 
and  not  the  latest,  we  are  at  once  confronted  with  Q  (the 
other  main  source  of  Matthew  and  Luke),  which  was  appar- 
ently earHer  than  Mark.  Indeed,  there  are  not  wanting  those 
who  find  in  Mark  traces  of  the  use  of  Q.  The  whole  question 
of  the  limits  of  Q  is  involved,  but  it  cannot  be  discussed  here. 
It  is  enough  to  say  that  we  are  not  justified  in  confining  Q 
solely  to  what  is  preserved  in  Matthew  and  Luke.'^  We  may 
admit  that  Mark  shows  some  use  of  Q.  "We  hold,  therefore, 
that  Mark  knew  and  used  Q,  but  only  to  a  limited  extent."  ^ 
If  so,  then  Mark  is  later  than  Q.  But  Moffatt  opposes  the 
idea  that  Mark  knew  Q.^ 

^  Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  124. 

2  Einleitung  in  die  drei  ersten  Evangeliejt,  p.  87. 

^  Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  18. 

*  Luke  the  Physician,  transl.,  1907,  p,  14. 

^  The  Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke,  1882,  pp.  305^. 

®  Einl.y  ii,  p.  427. 

'C/.  "The  Original  Extent  of  Q"  by  Streeter,  Oxford  Studies  in  the 
Synoptic  Problem,  pp.  184-208. 

8  Streeter,  "St.  Mark's  Knowledge  and  Use  of  Q,"  p.  178,  Oxford 
Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem. 

^Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  191 1,  p.  221; 
Wellhausen,  Einl.  in  die  drei  ersten  Evangelien,  pp.  73^.,  makes  Q  de- 
pendent on  Mark. 


12  STUDIES   IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

But  what  is  the  date  of  Q?  Streeter  says:  "The  interval 
of  time  between  the  original  writing  of  Q  and  its  use  by- 
Matthew  and  Luke  was  probably  very  considerable."  ^ 
"The  Gospel  of  Mark  forms  the  transition"^  from  Q  to 
Matthew  and  Luke.  Streeter  thinks  that  Q  "was  probably 
written  twenty  years  before  Mark."  ^  Ramsay  ^  holds  that  Q 
was  written  during  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  since  it  stops  short 
of  the  events  of  Passion  Week.  Salmon  ^  holds  the  same 
view.  Streeter  ^  holds  that  the  expectation  of  the  nearness 
of  the  Parousia  explains  the  absence  of  the  Passion  Week 
in  Q  and  suggests  twelve  years  after  the  death  of  Christ  as 
a  probable  date  for  Q.  Nolloth  ^  has  argued  that  the  com- 
mon use  of  shorthand  during  this  period  renders  it  quite 
possible  that  Q  contained  shorthand  reports  of  the  Sayings 
of  Jesus.  If  we  place  Q  at  42  a.  d.  and  Luke's  Gospel  at  58 
A.  D.,  we  seem  to  have  the  limits  for  Mark's  Gospel.  Allen 
indeed  proposes  50  A.  d.  as  the  date  for  our  Gospel  of  Mark.^ 
It  is  interesting  to  note  how  the  most  recent  and  reliable 
synoptic  criticism  thus  points  to  an  early  date  for  Mark's 
Gospel. 

4.  Matthew's  Use  of  Mark. — If  Matthew's  Greek  Gospel 
made  use  of  Mark,  as  is  now  generally  admitted,  though 
some  voices  insist  that  Mark  made  use  of  the  Aramaic  Mat- 
thew, the  argument  for  the  early  date  of  Mark  is  made  still 
stronger.  In  spite  of  Zahn's  contention  that  Mark  used  the 
Aramaic  Matthew,^  M.  Jones  concludes  that  "  the  use  of  St. 
Mark  by  the  authors  of  the  First  and  Third  Gospels  as  one 

^  Oxford  Studies,  p.  205. 
^  Ibid.,  p.  210. 

3  "Literary  Evolution  of  the  Gospels,"  Oxford  Studies,  p.  219. 
*  The  Expositor,  May,  1907. 
^  The  Human  Element  in  the  Gospels,  1907,  p.  274. 
^  Oxford  Studies,  p.  215. 

'  The  Rise  of  the  Christian  Religion,  191 7,  p.  23.  Nolloth  (p.  20)  places 
Mark's  Gospel  "about  a.  d.  50." 

^  Introduction  to  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  213. 
^  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  transl.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  601/. 


THE  DATE  OF  MARK  S  GOSPEL  13 

of  their  main  sources  seems  proved  beyond  dispute."  ^  It  is 
not  necessary  to  show  that  Luke  made  use  of  Matthew  to 
prove  the  early  date  of  Mark's  Gospel. 

5.  The  ^'Aramaic''  Mark, — Allen  proposes  a  still  earlier 
date  for  Mark's  Gospel  in  an  Aramaic  form:  ''A  very  suitable 
date  would  be  about  the  year  a.  d.  44,  when  St.  Peter,  who 
had  been  prominent  as  a  leader  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem, 
was  obUged  to  leave  the  city.^  But  the  whole  question  of 
the  Aramaic  original  of  our  Greek  Mark  is  quite  uncertain. 
In  fact,  I  am  inclined  to  agree  with  the  judgment  of  Swete  ^ 
that  a  translator  would  hardly  give  both  the  transliteration 
and  the  translation  of  the  Aramaic.  Allen  seeks  to  overcome 
this  point  by  suggesting  that  Mark  himself  wrote  the  Aramaic 
while  with  Peter  in  Jerusalem  about  44  a.  d.,  and  made  the 
translation  while  with  Paul  and  Barnabas  at  Antioch  about 
50  A.  D.  I  do  not  care  to  discuss  here  the  position  of 
Blass,  Marshall,  and  Wellhausen  that  the  original  Mark 
was  in  Aramaic.  The  point  that  is  pertinent  is  that 
the  date  of  the  Greek  Mark  seems  to  be  as  early  as 
A.  D.  50. 

6.  Possible  Editions  hy  Mark. — It  is  true  that  some  of 
the  early  Christian  writers  suggest  Rome  as  the  place  where 
the  Gospel  of  Mark  was  written.  Papias,  however,  has  noth- 
ing as  to  the  place  of  writing.  Harnack  examines  with  care 
all  these  traditions,  and  concludes:  *' Tradition  asserts  no 
veto  against  the  hypothesis  that  St.  Luke,  when  he  met  St. 
Mark  in  the  company  of  St.  Paul  the  prisoner  was  permitted 
by  him  to  peruse  a  written  record  of  the  Gospel  history  which 
was  essentially  identical  with  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  which 
was  given  to  the  Church  at  a  later  time."  ^  Harnack  sug- 
gests, therefore,  that  Mark  made  a  ''final  revision"  of  his 
work  in  Rome.     There  is  nothing  incongruous  in  the  idea 

^  The  New  Testament  in  the  Twentieth  Century,  19 14. 
2  Introduction  to  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  13. 
^  Commentary,  p.  xxxvii. 
*  Date  of  Acts  and  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  133. 


14  STUDIES  IN  mark's  GOSPEL 

that  Mark  revised  his  Gospel  once  or  twice.  Holdsworth,^ 
indeed,  suggests  that  Mark  wrote  one  edition  of  his  Gospel 
at  Caesarea,  a  shorthand  report  of  Peter's  sermon  (Acts  lo: 
S4.Jf.),  another  later  in  Egypt,  and  another  in  Rome.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  pass  finally  on  these  suggestions.  They  all 
go  to  show  how  criticism  has  cautiously  felt  its  way  in  the 
study  of  the  Gospel  sources.  Allen  ^  is  willing  to  concede  a 
third  edition  of  Mark's  Gospel  in  Rome.  Swete  wished  to 
reserve  the  question  of  editorial  revision  for  further  study ,^ 
though  he  was  convinced  of  the  unity  of  the  work  and  of  the 
Marcan  authorship.  Mark  was  with  Peter  in  Jerusalem 
(Acts  12:12)  and  later  in  Rome  (Babylon,  i  Pet.  5:13),  and 
possibly  at  other  times.  If  his  Gospel,  as  Papias  said,  rests 
primarily  on  the  preaching  of  Peter,  there  is  ample  room 
for  it  in  the  early  period.  There  is  nothing  to  support 
the  tradition  in  Irenaeus  that  Mark  wrote  after  Peter's 
death. 

7.  The  Editing  of  Redactors. — The  view  of  Wendling  calls 
for  remark.  He  suggests  three  "Marks"  (M^  M^,  M  ^  =  our 
Mark).  Williams  makes  a  careful  survey  of  this  problem 
under  the  title,  "A  Recent  Theory  of  the  Origin  of  St.  Mark's 
Gospel."  ^  Wendling's  books  ^  have  attracted  considerable  at- 
tention.^ WilHams  notes  ''  the  extreme  interest  and  acuteness 
of  the  hterary  analysis  by  which  the  theory  is  supported"^ 
and  says:  "It  cannot  be  denied  the  merit  of  ingenuity  and 
plausibility."  ^  He  concludes,  however,  "that  a  great  deal, 
if  not  all,  of  WendHng's  elaborate  structure  will  have  to  be 
dismantled"  and  thinks  that  the  facts  have  been  "forced  into 

1  Gospel  Origins,  1913,  p.  115. 
^Op.  cU.,  p.  13. 
3  Comm.,  p.  lix. 
^  Oxford  Skidies,  pp.  387-421. 

^  Urmarcus,  1905;  Die  Entstchung  des  Marciis-evangeliums,  1908. 
^  Cf.  Menzies,  Review  of  Theology  and  Philosophy,  July,  1909;  The 
Earliest  Gospel;  A  Historical  Study  of  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark,  1901. 
^  Op.  oil.,  p.  390. 
8  Op.  cit.j  p.  403. 


THE  DATE   OF  MARK's   GOSPEL  1 5 

a  Procrustean  mould  in  order  to  be  explained."  ^  The  Ur- 
Marcus  theory  still  appeals  to  some  minds,  and  Moffatt  sug- 
gests "hesitation  not  in  the  acceptance  but  in  the  working  out 
of  the  hypothesis  that  the  canonical  Mark,  written  shortly 
after  a.  d.  70,  is  based  for  the  most  part  on  Mark's  draft  of  the 
Petrine  reminiscences."  ^  Bacon  calls  our  canonical  Mark  R. 
(Redactor)  in  distinction  from  Mark's  Petrine  Reminiscences 
which  were  used  by  the  Redactor.  Bacon  follows  the  tradi- 
tion of  Irenaeus  that  "Mark"  (Redactor)  wrote  after  the 
death  of  Peter  as  "explicit"  and  speaks  of  "  the  futile  attempt 
of  the  divergent  form  of  the  tradition  in  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, to  bring  the  writing  under  the  imprimatur  of  Peter 
without  making  him  responsible  for  all  its  contents."  ^  The 
conclusion  of  Harnack,  quoted  above,  seems  more  plausible, 
that  these  contradictory  traditions  leave  us  free  to  settle 
the  date  of  Mark's  Gospel  apart  from  the  stories  in  Irenaeus 
and  Clement  of  Alexandria.  It  is  hard  to  feel  the  force  of 
Bacon's  next  clause:  "Even  the  very  beginnings  of  the  com- 
position must  therefore  date  almost  as  late  as  the  outbreak 
of  the  Jewish  War  (66  A.  d.)."  The  "must  therefore"  rests 
upon  Irenaeus,  who  is  contradicted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Origen,  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  Jerome.  "As  it  is,  Mark  must 
be  dated  about  70-75  a.  d.,  and  Matthew  but  very  few  years 
later."  ^  This  positive  tone  of  Bacon  is  dependent  upon  the 
certainty  of  his  theory  of  a  Redactor.  It  is  pertinent  to  quote 
the  cautious  judgment  of  Sir  John  C.  Hawkins  in  his  HorcB 
SynopticcB  (2d  edition,  1909,  p.  152).  "On  the  whole,  it 
seems  to  me  that  such  an  examination  of  the  Marcan  pecul- 
iarities, as  has  now  been  attempted,  supplies  results  which  are 
largely  in  favor  of  the  view  that  the  Petrine  source  used  by 
the  two  late  Synoptics  was  not  an  'Ur-Marcus,'  but  St. 
Mark's  Gospel  ahnost  as  we  have  it.    Ahnost;  but  not  quite." 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  403. 

^Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  227. 

^  The  Beginnings  of  Gospel  Story,  1909,  p.  xxxi. 

^  Bacon,  Beginnings  of  the  Gospel  Story,  p.  xxxiii. 


l6  STUDIES  IN  MARK*S  GOSPEL 

Hawkins  sees  ''a  later  editor's  hand"  in  i:i,  "Jesus  Christ'^; 
9  '.41,  "  Christ's  "  and  some  half  dozen  other  details.  Burkitt  ^ 
also  opposes  the  Ur-Markan  Theory. 

8.  The  Narrow  Limits. — It  cannot  be  said  that  the  Syn- 
optic Problem  is  settled.  No  problem  in  human  knowledge 
is  ever  settled,  so  that  no  intellect  can  raise  objections  to 
it.  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson  has  a  new  book,  The  Jesus  Problentf 
in  which  he  seeks  to  show  that  Jesus  never  existed  and  is 
only  a  myth  of  the  imagination.  But  Maurice  Jones  carries 
most  with  him  when  he  introduces  his  treatment  of  the 
Synoptic  problem  with  this  sentence:  "The  most  notable 
achievement  in  the  department  of  recent  New  Testament 
criticism  is  undoubtedly  the  fairly  general  agreement  arrived 
at  with  regard  to  the  mutual  relations  of  the  first  three 
Gospels."  2 

It  is  not  claimed  that  modern  scholars  are  agreed  as  to 
the  date  of  Mark's  Gospel,  only  that  "a  very  late  date  is  not 
contended  for"  any  longer.^  As  we  have  seen,  the  critics 
range  from  44  a.  d.  to  75  a.  d.  Those  who  contend  for  the 
later  date  (70-75  a.  d.)  argue  mainly  from  Mark  13,  which 
is  made  to  depend  on  a  "Little  Apocalypse"  circulated 
among  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  incorporated  into  the  Second  Gospel.  But  it  is  equally 
possible  that  the  hypothetical  "Little  Apocaljq^se"  was  a 
report  of  the  discourse  of  Jesus  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  as 
it  purports  to  be,  which  was  used  by  Mark.  There  is  no 
real  reason  for  thinking  that  Mark  confined  his  Gospel  to 
his  own  notes  or  recollections  of  Peter's  discourses.  He  may 
have  employed  Q.  He  probably  used  oral  and  written 
sources  as  did  Luke.  Certainly  the  position  of  Mark  in 
Jerusalem  made  it  easy  for  him  to  learn  the  current  inter- 
pretation of  Jesus  among  the  disciples. 

^  Gospel  History  and  its  Transmission,  1906. 

2  The  New  Testament  in  the  Twentieth  Century,  p.  189. 

3  Jackson,  "The  Present  State  of  the  S3aioptic  Problem,"  Cambridge 
Biblical  Essays,  1909,  p.  440. 


THE  DATE  OF  MARK's  GOSPEL  1 7 

Since  writing  thus  far,  I  have  turned  to  pp.  202  and  203  of 
Stanton's  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents  (Part  II), 
where  he  gives  his  eight  "conclusions  from  the  foregoing 
inquiry"  concerning  Mark's  Gospel.  They  are  all  in  sub- 
stantial accord  with  the  hne  of  argument  pursued  in  this 
chapter.  Luke  himself  in  his  Gospel  (1:1-4)  should  have 
taught  us  all  long  ago  that  the  writing  of  the  sayings  and 
deeds  of  Jesus  began  very  early,  for  he  spoke  of  ''many" 
such  attempts.  Perhaps  most  of  them  were  more  or  less 
incomplete  or  gave  only  detached  incidents  or  reports  of 
single  discourses  or  parables.  The  Oxyrhynchus  Logia  of 
Jesus,  recently  discovered,  furnish  a  partial  parallel  to  Q. 
Somewhere  between  40  a.  d.  and  60  A.  d.,  I  should  say,  Mark 
wrote  his  Gospel  substantially  as  we  have  it  now  and  in 
Greek.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  evidence  as  a  whole  points 
to  50  A.  D.  as  the  probable  date. 

9.  The  Early  Date  Most  Probable. — At  any  rate,  we  can 
all  be  grateful  for  the  critical  unanimity  with  which  the 
priority  of  Mark  is  acknowledged  and  the  correspondingly 
early  date  of  this  Gospel.  It  is  worth  all  that  it  has  cost  to 
reach  solid  ground  here.^  Schweitzer  says:  "The  liberal 
Jesus  has  given  place  to  the  Germanic  Jesus"  under  the 
teaching  of  Nietzsche,  a  curious  prophecy  of  present-day 
conditions.  "At  the  present  day  the  Germanic  spirit  is 
making  a  Jesus  after  its  own  likeness."  ^  That  is  too  gloomy 
a  view  and  was  expressed  by  Schweitzer  to  make  room  for 
his  own  "eschatological"  Jesus.  More  just  is  the  state- 
ment of  von  Soden  about  Mark's  Gospel:  "For  a  first  at- 
tempt to  combine  in  a  complete  whole  the  isolated  written 
and  oral  reminiscences  of  the  pubhc  ministry  of  our  Lord 
current  at  the  time,  this  Gospel  is  a  masterly  performance."  ^ 

The  evidence  on  the  whole  demands  an  early  date.  This 
date  is  consonant  with  the  character  of  the  Gospel  which 

*  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus,  transl.,  1910,  p.  307. 

2  IhU. 

'  The  History  of  the  Early  Christian  Literature,  transl.,  1906,  p.  162. 


l8  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

preserves  the  life-like  touches  from  the  preaching  of  Peter 
and  allows  some  use  of  Q  and  other  data  from  various  sources 
with  a  few  editorial  touches  some  years  later  either  by  Mark 
himseh,  as  is  most  likely,  or  by  an  editor.  In  Mark's  Gospel, 
therefore,  we  catch  the  very  atmosphere  of  the  first  gener- 
ation of  those  who  walked  with  Jesus  over  the  hills  and 
plains  of  Gahlee.  The  note  of  wonder  runs  all  through  the 
Gospel  of  Mark.  The  people  are  seen  all  aglow  with  excite- 
ment in  the  presence  of  the  Wonder- Worker.  Peter  pre- 
serves the  freshness  of  that  early  morn  of  Christianity. 
Mark  himself  is  full  of  it,  and  makes  abundant  use  of  the 
historical  present  tense  as  he  visualizes  the  glory  and  rapture 
of  those  early  days  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth.  The 
frequent  use  of  the  imperfect  tense  is  to  the  same  effect.  It 
is  as  if  a  cinema  machine  had  snapped  the  moving  crowds 
as  they  thronged  about  Jesus  and  followed  him  from  place 
to  place.  The  picture  is  toned  down  in  Matthew  and  in 
Luke,  but  in  Mark  the  negative  has  the  lines  in  the  picture 
still.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  children  are  fond  of  Mark's 
Gospel,  for  they  can  see  Mark's  picture  of  Jesus  and  their 
eyes  sparkle  as  they  behold  Him. 


CHAPTER  ni 
mark's  gospel  and  the  synoptic  problem^ 

"It  seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  traced  the  course  of  all  things 
accurately  from  the  first,  to  write  unto  thee  in  order,  most  excellent 
Theophilus;  that  thou  mightest  know  the  certainty  of  those  things 
wherein  thou  wast  instructed."    Luke  1:3-4. 

The  story  of  Jesus  still  fascinates  the  minds  of  men  in 
spite  of  all  efforts  to  relegate  it  to  the  limbo  of  myth  or 
legend.  Strauss  and  Renan  failed  to  remove  the  Gospels 
from  the  sphere  of  serious  historical  documents.  Drews  ^ 
and  Smith  ^  have  likewise  failed  completely  to  destroy  the 
historical  character  of  Jesus  in  the  judgment  of  a  stout  skep- 
tic like  F.  C.  Conybeare.^  The  Great  War  shook  the  world 
out  of  whatever  indifference  to  Christ  had  come.  Whatever 
is  true  about  the  Miracle  of  the  Mame  or  the  angels  at  Mons 
or  the  White  Comrade  in  the  trenches  in  France,  men  are 
to-day  face  to  face  with  Christ  in  a  new  and  wonderful  sense. 

I.  The  Necessity  of  Knowing  Mark. — The  religious  world 
is  right  up  against  the  credibiHty  and  origin  of  the  Gospel 
narratives.  Right  across  one's  path  in  the  pursuit  of  this 
inquiry  lies  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  "No  man  can  pretend  to 
have  seriously  examined  the  historical  basis  of  the  Christian 
faith  who  has  not  to  some  extent  applied  the  ordinary  proc- 
esses of  historical  criticism  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  the 
earhest  extant  embodiment  of  the  evangeUc  story."  ^    Mark's 

^  The  Constructive  Quarterly,  March,  19 18. 

2  The  Christ  Myth,  transl.,  19 14, 

^  The  Pre-Christian  Jesus,  1906. 

^  The  Historical  Christ,  1914. 

5  Bacon,  The  Beginnings  of  the  Gospel  Story,  p.  vii. 

19 


20  STUDIES  IN  MARK'S   GOSPEL 

Gospel  challenges  the  interest  of  the  average  man  and  of  the 
expert  in  New  Testament  literature.  Indeed,  some  of  the 
critics  find  in  Mark  the  only  historical  basis  for  crediting 
the  story  of  Jesus  Christ.  Schweitzer  chides  the  radical 
critics  thus:  ''Modern  historical  theology,  therefore,  with 
its  three-quarters  skepticism,  is  left  at  last  with  only  a  torn 
and  tattered  Gospel  of  Mark  in  its  hands."  ^  Schweitzer 
has  his  own  pet  theory  of  eschatology  as  the  sole  explanation 
of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  but  he  does  not  hesitate  to  break 
a  lance  with  the  foremost  German  scholars.  He  scouts  the 
whimsicalities  of  Schmiedel  and  von  Soden  about  Mark  and 
" Ur-Markus,"  "to  retain  just  so  much  of  the  Gospel  as  will 
fit  into  their  construction."^  ''But  in  that  case,  how  can 
a  modern  Life  of  Jesus  be  founded  on  the  Marcan  plan? 
How  much  of  Mark  is,  in  the  end,  historical?"  ^ 

Harnack  is  more  optimistic  than  Schweitzer  about  the 
value  of  Mark,  though  he  laments  the  sad  phght  of  gospel 
criticism.  ''Hence  the  wretched  plight  in  which  the  criticism 
of  the  Gospels  finds  itself  in  these  days,  and  indeed  has  al- 
ways found  itself — with  the  exception  of  the  work  of  a  few 
critics,  and  apart  from  the  Marcan  problem,  which  has  been 
treated  with  scientific  thoroughness."  ^  One  is  caught  by 
the  phrase  "scientific  thoroughness"  about  the  study  of 
Mark's  Gospel.  At  once  then,  we  wish  to  know  what  modern 
scientific  research  has  to  say  about  Mark's  Gospel.  We  have 
heard  a  deal  about  the  alleged  unhistorical  character  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  as  compared  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  We 
have  heard  much  also  concerning  the  "Jesus  or  Christ"  con- 
troversy ^  after  we  turn  to  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  Even  there 
we  find  "  Christ."  We  were  told  to  discount  Paul  as  the  one 
who  had  perverted  the  simple  gospel  of  the  Kingdom  preached 

1  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus,  transl.,  p.  307. 

2  Ibid,  p.  304. 

3  Ihid,  p.  306. 

*  The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  transl.,  p.  xiii. 

^  See  Supplement  to  the  Hibbert  Journal  for  January,  1909. 


mark's   gospel  and   the    synoptic  problem       21 

by  Jesus  through  his  Pharisaic  rabbinism  on  the  one  hand 
and  his  Hellenism  and  mystery-religion  affinities  on  the  other. 
So  we  were  told  to  go  ''back  to  Christ"  and  away  from  Paul. 
But  now  the  Synoptic  Gospels  are  said  to  be  as  guilty  of 
theology  as  Paul.  Bacon  even  discusses  "the  Paulinism  of 
Mark,"  ^  as  he  notes  Paul's  influence  on  the  Fourth  Gospel.^ 
Bacon  is  right  in  saying  that  modern  interest  is  not  satisfied 
with  proof  that  such  a  man  wrote  one  of  the  Gospels  at  such 
a  date.  "What  was  the  event  which  gave  rise  to  the  story? 
Through  what  phases  has  the  tradition  passed  to  acquire  its 
canonical  forms?"  ^  This  is  certainly  true.  "Our  first  duty, 
with  the  Gospel  as  with  every  other  ancient  document,  is  to 
interpret  it  with  reference  to  its  own  time."  ^ 

2.  The  Modern  vs.  the  Traditional  View  of  Mark. — What 
then  is  Mark's  Gospel  in  the  light  of  modern  criticism? 
The  book  has  absolutely  nothing  to  say  about  itself  or  its 
author.  It  is  thus  different  from  the  Gospel  of  John  (John 
20:30/.;  21:24)  and  the  Gospel  of  Luke  (Luke  1:1-4),  both  of 
which  have  something  to  tell  about  the  method  employed  in 
using  the  material  at  hand.  W^e  have  to  look  elsewhere, 
therefore,  for  any  information  concerning  the  origin  of  Mark's 
Gospel  save  what  may  be  obtained  by  comparing  the  writing 
with  the  other  Gospels.  The  early  commentators  seem  to 
have  neglected  this  Gospel.  Victor  of  Antioch  (fifth  or  sixth 
century  a.  d.)  the  earliest  known  commentator  on  Mark, 
"complains  that,  while  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John  had  re- 
ceived the  attention  of  a  number  of  expositors,  and  St.  Luke 
also  had  attracted  a  few,  his  utmost  efforts  had  failed  to  de- 
tect a  single  commentary  upon  St.  Mark."  ^  It  is  plain  that 
for  a  long  time  Mark's  Gospel  was  less  esteemed  and  less  used 

^  Beginnings  of  the  Gospel  Story,  p.  xxvii. 
2  The  Fourth  Gospel  in  Research  and  Debate,  p.  7. 
^  Ibid,  p.  vii. 

^  Burkitt,  Preface  to  transl.  of  Schweitzer's  Quest  of  the  Historical 
Jesus,  p.  vii. 

^  Swete,  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark,  p.  xxix. 


22 

than  the  others,  in  particular  less  than  the  Gospels  of  Mat- 
thew and  John,  the  work  of  apostles,  while  Mark's  at  best 
was  only  the  work  of  an  apostle's  disciple.  As  compared 
with  Luke's  Gospel  it  was  much  briefer  and  less  complete 
and  without  Luke's  literary  charm.  Besides,  Irenaeus 
asserted  that  Mark's  Gospel  was  later  than  that  of  Matthew 
and  of  less  intrinsic  historical  worth.  His  order  of  the 
Gospels  is,  Matthew  (in  Aramaic  first),  Mark,  Luke,  John, 
and  Zahn  supports  this  view  with  his  great  learning.^  Au- 
gustine ^  speaks  of  Mark  as  the  "follower  and  abbreviator  of 
Matthew,"  a  view  that  seems  directly  counter  to  the  modern 
view.  The  uncertainty  among  the  ancient  writers  as  to  the 
place  and  value  of  Mark's  Gospel  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
different  writers  used  each  of  the  symbols  to  describe  Mark 
(the  lion,  the  man,  the  ox,  the  eagle).  And  yet  Holdsworth 
is  correct  in  saying:  "The  priority  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  is 
now  generally  accepted  by  modern  critics."  ^ 

3.  But  the  True  Origin  of  Mark^s  Gospel  Preserved  from  the 
First. — So  then  we  moderns  plume  ourselves  on  a  clearer 
conception  of  the  critical  and  historical  value  of  Mark's 
Gospel  than  many  of  the  ancients.  "But  it  remained  for 
a  later  age  to  realize  and  appreciate  to  the  full  the  report 
which  has  descended  to  us  from  the  senior  Apostle  through 
the  ministry  of  John  Mark."  ^  After  all,  however,  the  an- 
cients seemed  to  have  known  the  true  origin  of  Mark's  Gospel. 
Papias  (quoted  in  Eusebius,  H.  E.  iii,  39)  gives  a  true  picture 
of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  as  we  have  it  to-day.^  One  could  wish 
that  Eusebius  had  given  all  that  Papias  had  to  say  on  the 
subject.  Papias  quotes  the  Presbyter  John  as  the  authority 
for  his  words  about  Mark's  Gospel.     This  Presbyter  John 

*  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  transl.,  1909,  vol.  2,  pp.  398, 418^., 
etc. 

^de  Cons.  Evang.,  i,  4. 

^  Gospel  Origins,  1913,  p.  104. 

*  Swete,  op.  ciL,  p.  xxxiii. 

^  See  next  chapter  for  a  full  discussion  of  the  testimony  of  Papias. 


mark's  gospel  and  the  synoptic  problem     23 

was  almost  certainly  the  Apostle  John.^  If  so,  we  have  here  a 
critieism  of  the  Second  Gospel  by  the  Apostle  John  as  reported 
by  Papias.^  This  criticism  credits  this  Gospel  with  accuracy 
of  statement,  but  lack  of  order,  although  modern  scholars 
consider  Mark's  Gospel  as  the  framework  of  both  Matthew 
and  Luke.  Probably  by  ''order"  (o-wra^tv)  here  is  meant 
fullness  and  completeness  as  compared  with  the  other  Gos- 
pels rather  than  mere  chronology.  This  point  is  true,  for 
Mark's  Gospel  has  nothing  about  the  infancy  and  youth  of 
Jesus  like  Matthew  and  John,  nothing  about  the  early 
ministry  of  Jesus  like  John  save  the  baptism  and  temptation 
of  Jesus.  It  is  mainly  a  narration  of  leading  events  in  the 
Galilean  ministry  of  Jesus  with  the  story  of  Passion  Week 
and  the  Resurrection. 

4.  Connection  of  Mark  with  Peter. — The'  connection  of 
Mark  and  Peter  is  attested  by  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Tertullian,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  Jerome. 
They  do  not  agree  in  all  details  as  to  time  and  place  of  the 
writing  of  the  Gospel,  the  occasion  for  Mark's  doing  it,  or 
the  extent  of  Peter's  influence  on  the  work.  Rome  is  the 
place  usually  assigned  and  the  impulse  is  given  to  the  Roman 
Christians  who  wished  Mark  to  preserve  for  them  the  teach- 
ings of  Peter  about  Christ.  This  was  done  with  the  silent 
acquiescence  of  Peter  (Clement  of  Alexandria),  with  Peter's 
approval  and  authorization  (Jerome),  after  Peter's  death 
(Irenaeus).  We  may  pass  by  the  various  discrepancies  in  the 
tradition  with  the  recognition  of  the  undoubted  fact  that 
Mark  was  associated  with  Peter  in  Rome  (Babylon)  according 
to  Peter's  own  words  (i  Peter  5:13).  Some  have  suggested 
that  Peter  refers  to  his  purpose  to  see  to  the  preservation  of 
his  knowledge  of  Christ  in  his  words  in  2  Peter  1:15,  assuming 
the  genuineness  of  this  disputed  epistle. 

It  may  be  said  at  once  that  there  is  nothing  in  Mark's 
Gospel  inconsistent  with  this  tradition  that  Mark  used  Peter's 

*  Dom  Chapman,  John  the  Presbyter  and  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
2  Zahn,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  vol.  2,  pp.  438/. 


24  STUDIES  IN  MARK'S   GOSPEL 

recollections  (drrofjiVYjixovevfiaTa)  of  Jesus  in  the  preparation 
of  his  Gospel.  We  do  not  have  to  say  that  Mark  had  no 
other  source  of  information  or  that  he  acted  as  the  mere 
amanuensis  of  Peter  who  dictated  the  Gospel.  Mark's 
mother  Mary  was  a  leader  in  the  Jerusalem  church  and  her 
home  was  the  resort  of  the  great  spirits  in  early  Christianity 
(Acts  12:12).  Peter,  Barnabas,  John  and  the  rest  would 
here  talk  freely  in  conversation  and  in  sermons  about  Jesus' 
life  and  work.  It  is  quite  possible  that  John  Mark  early 
began  to  make  notes  of  some  of  these  things.  At  any  rate, 
when  Paul  speaks  of  Mark  as  "useful  to  him  for  ministry" 
(2  Tim.  4:11)  while  with  Paul  in  Rome  (Col.  4:10),  it  may 
be  that  he  has  reference  to  Mark's  reports  of  what  Peter 
and  the  rest  had  said  about  Christ.  Indeed,  Mark's  Gospel 
may  already  have  been  written  ere  Paul  was  in  Rome  the 
first  time.  Paul  may  have  read  it  and  may  even  refer  to  this 
service  of  Mark.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  also  that  the  report 
of  Peter's  sermon  at  Caesarea  (Acts  10:36-43)  is  strangely 
Hke  the  general  outHnes  of  Mark's  Gospel.  Mark  may  even 
have  been  one  of  the  ''six"  with  Peter  on  this  occasion  and 
may  have  made  fragmentary  notes  of  this  and  of  other  dis- 
courses by  Peter. 

5.  Notes  of  an  Eyewitness. — ^The  notes  of  an  eye-witness 
are  manifest  in  Mark's  Gospel.  They  are  admitted  by  all 
and  include  such  details  as  the  look  of  anger  (3:5),  the  single 
pillow  in  the  boat  (4:38),  the  disposal  of  the  five  thousand 
like  garden  beds  (Trpaa-Lal  Trpaa-taX  6:40)  and  the  green  grass 
(6:39),  Christ  sighing  over  the  blindness  of  the  Pharisees 
(8:12),  taking  the  children  in  his  arms  (9:36;  10:16),  Christ's 
look  of  love  upon  the  rich  young  ruler  (10:21),  and  the  cloud 
upon  the  young  man's  face  (10:22).  The  graphic  style  of 
Mark  is  seen  also  in  his  frequent  use  of  the  imperfect  tense 
to  describe  the  scene,  as  the  picture  of  Jesus  watching  the 
crowds  and  the  rich  in  particular  as  they  cast  their  gifts 
into  the  treasury  (12:41).  The  historical  present  is  also  very 
common  and  is  due  to  the  same  vividness  and  realistic 


MARK'S   GOSPEL  AND  THE   SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        2$ 

imagination  of  an  eyewitness.  Mark  sees  the  picture  going 
on  because  of  Peter's  vivid  description  in  his  discourses. 
These  picturesque  details  ^  do  not  prove  that  Peter  is  respon- 
sible for  them,  but  only  that  they  are  due  to  an  eyewitness. 
The  early  writers,  as  we  have  seen,  ascribe  the  body  of  the 
Gospel  to  Peter  as  the  ultimate  source.  The  character  of  the 
Gospel  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  this  uniform  tradition. 
The  very  unobtrusiveness  of  the  Petrine  touches  increases 
their  importance  (Swete). 

6.  The  Sources  of  Mark's  Gospel. — We  are  confronted  there- 
fore with  the  sources  of  Mark's  information.  It  is  not  nec- 
essary to  assume  that  Peter  was  the  sole  source  for  Mark's 
Gospel.  If  Papias  is  correct  in  his  statement  that  Mark  was 
not  a  personal  follower  of  Jesus  and  did  not  even  hear  him, 
he  yet  lived  in  Jerusalem  and  had  access  to  the  reports  of  many 
who  did  hear  Jesus  and  who  were  eyewitnesses  of  many  of 
the  incidents  in  Christ's  life.  There  is  no  more  reason  for 
confining  Mark  to  one  source  than  Luke.  Schmiedel  is 
correct  in  insisting  that  we  must  be  willing  to  think  of  the 
''sources  of  sources."  Mark's  Gospel  and  Q  (the  Logia) 
themselves  are  based  on  sources.  Luke  fortunately  has  an 
historian's  introduction  to  his  Gospel  and  frankly  records 
his  method  of  investigation  and  use  of  materials  for  his 
book.  He  does  not  claim  '' originality."  That  is  the  very 
last  qualification  for  the  reliable  historian.  He  must  never 
invent  his  information.  That  he  must  obtain  from  others 
unless  he  is  a  participator  in  the  events  or  a  spectator  of 
them.  When  Luke  wrote,  "many"  had  undertaken  "to 
draw  up  a  narrative  concerning  these  matters  which  have 
been  fulfilled  among  us"  (i:i).  Luke  is  himself  a  Greek 
Christian  of  Asia  Minor  or  of  Macedonia  and  probably  had 
no  personal  acquaintance  with  the  great  matters  of  the 
recent  past  connected  with  the  life  and  work  of  Jesus.  We 
know,  however,  that  he  had  two  years  in  Palestine  when 
Paul  was  a  prisoner  at  Caesarea  (24:27),  assuming  that 
^  See  next  chapter  for  fuller  details. 


26  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

Luke  is  the  author  of  the  Acts.  He  had  ample  time  and 
opportunity  during  this  period  to  get  first-hand  information 
from  those  who  were  close  to  Christ  while  on  earth.  He  may- 
even  have  seen  and  conversed  with  Mary,  the  Mother  of 
Jesus,  and  his  account  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  is  certainly  told 
from  her  standpoint  as  that  in  Matthew  is  reported  from 
the  point  of  view  of  Joseph.  At  Caesarea  resided  Philip, 
deacon  and  evangelist,  and  his  four  daughters  (Acts  21:8/.). 
In  Jerusalem  Luke  would  see  James  the  Lord's  brother  and 
many  others,  men  and  women,  who  were  full  of  the  great 
deeds  and  words  of  Jesus.  Luke  distinctly  states  that  he 
received  help  from  those  "who  from  the  beginning  were 
eye-witnesses  (avroTrrat)  and  ministers  (wry/DeVat)  of  the  word" 
and  who  were  thus  in  full  possession  of  the  facts.  He 
had  and  used  oral  testimony  therefore  beyond  a  doubt. 
If  Luke  did  so,  why  should  not  Mark  have  done  likewise 
apart  from  Peter's  oral  witness  of  which  Mark  probably 
made  frequent  notes  (shorthand  or  otherwise)?  It  is  not 
necessary  to  go  back  to  the  oral  theory  as  the  explanation 
of  all  the  similarities  and  differences  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
as  Westcott  so  ably  argued  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Four 
Gospels  (1875)  and  as  is  still  held  by  A.  Wright.^  The  diffi- 
culty in  the  synoptic  problem  has  been  precisely  this,  that 
men  have  tried  to  explain  all  the  phenomena  by  one  hy- 
pothesis instead  of  being  willing  to  see  all  the  facts  and  to 
allow  the  free  play  of  life  instead  of  the  narrow  vise  of  a  hard 
and  fast  theory.  Sanday  has  presented  with  characteristic 
lucidity  and  force  ''the  conditions  under  which  the  Gospels 
were  written  in  their  bearing  upon  some  difficulties  of  the 
Synoptic  Problem."^  He  shows  that  "the  Evangelists  are 
not  copyists  but  historians"  (p.  12).  They  are  not  slavishly 
transcribing  minute  details  from  this  or  that  document  or 
jotting  down  stenographic  reports  of  discourses.  They  do 
use  rehable  sources  of  information,  but  they  often  retell  the 

1  The  Gospel  According  to  St.  Luke  in  Greek,  1900. 

2  Pages  3-26  in  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  191 1. 


27 

story  in  their  own  words  or  dovetail  the  language  from  one 
source  into  their  narration  with  the  freedom  of  ancient  and 
modern  historians.  Variations  of  language  are  not  matters 
for  surprise,  but  are  to  be  expected. .  "  And  yet  the  Gospels 
are  not  exactly  histories,"  Sanday  adds.^  That  is  to  say, 
they  are  not  mere  objective  records  which  are  colorless  and 
non-committal.  They  are  all  party  pamphlets  in  the  sense 
that  they  are  written  by  men  wholly  committed  to  the 
acceptance  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  the  Jewish  Messiah,  but 
yet  not  such  as  the  Pharisees  expected.  He  is  the  real  Mes- 
siah and  King  of  the  spiritual  Kingdom  of  God  in  the  hearts 
of  men  and  is  both  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man.  All  four 
Gospels  champion  this  thesis  and  prove  it,  though  each  has 
its  own  angle  of  vision.  The  approach  is  individual  in  each 
instance,  and  the  touch  to  the  picture  is  different,  though 
the  broad  outline  is  the  same.  Mark's  Gospel  is  more  ob- 
jective, but  is  still  a  theological  interpretation  of  Jesus  for 
the  Roman  world.  Matthew's  Gospel  is  a  direct  plea  to 
Jewish  readers  to  show  that  Jesus  is  the  Jewish  Messiah. 
Luke's  Gospel  has  the  broader  outlook  of  the  Greek  culture 
and  presents  the  universal  aspects  of  Christ  the  Saviour  of 
men.  John's  Gospel  gives  the  eternal  relations  of  Christ's 
person  and  work  and  interprets  Christ's  deity  in  terms  of 
the  current  philosophy.  Sanday  insists  rightly  that  we  take 
note  of  the  actual  conditions  (psychological  and  external) 
under  which  the  Gospels  were  written.  The  use  of  papyrus 
rolls  instead  of  codices  or  printed  books  played  its  part 
in  the  matter  of  convenience  in  consulting  the  docu- 
ments. 

7.  Mark  Used  hy  Luke  and  Matthew. — Luke  states  (1:1-4) 
also  that  he  made  use  of  the  written  accounts  of  the  life  of 
Jesus.  The  ancients  of  the  first  century  were  great  letter- 
writers  as  we  know  from  the  papyri.  They  used  shorthand 
and  made  notes  of  all  sorts.  Cicero  employed  shorthand  in 
the  trial  of  Catiline,  and  it  was  in  common  use  in  the  first 
^  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  p.  14. 


28  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

century  a.  d.^  We  must  get  rid  of  the  idea  that  the  first 
century  a.  d.  was  an  ignorant  age.  Mahaffy  has  shown  that 
the  Grseco-Roman  civihzation  "was  so  perfect  that,  as  far 
as  it  reached,  men  were  more  cultivated  in  the  strict  sense 
than  they  ever  have  been  since."  ^  He  adds,  ''The  Hellen- 
istic world  was  more  cultivated  in  argument  than  we  are 
nowadays."  Palestine  was  not  in  a  backwater,  but  right 
in  the  stream  of  Greek  culture  as  it  flowed  north  and  south, 
east  and  west.  The  Pharisees  resisted  the  influences  of 
Hellenism,  but  it  was  pervasive  nevertheless.  "The  period 
was  one  of  great  literary  activity  in  the  Jewish  world.  These 
considerations,  while  they  do  not  prove,  go  far  to  commend 
the  opinion  that  the  common,  non-Marcan  material  of  the 
First  and  Third  Gospels  was  committed  to  writing  within 
the  time  of  our  Lord's  pubUc  ministry."  ^  If  Matthew  the 
pubhcan,  who  was  used  to  making  and  keeping  data,  wrote 
Q  or  the  Logia,  he  may  very  well  have  made  copious  notes 
of  the  sayings  of  Jesus  which  he  so  often  heard.  Luke 
expressly  says  that  "many"  (ttoXXoI)  "undertook  to  draw 
up  a  narrative"  {iTrexetp-qa-av  avara^aa-Oai  hi-qytjuvv).  The 
language  implies  an  orderly  arrangement  of  some  sort  of 
a  more  or  less  extended  character.  By  Luke's  time  the 
matter  had  passed  beyond  the  stage  of  notes  or  jottings  or 
groups  of  incidents  or  anecdotes.  Recent  discoveries  in  the 
papyri  have  restored  to  us  some  of  the  Sayings  of  Jesus 
{Logia)  introduced  with  the  formula  "Jesus  says."  ^  Luke 
throws  no  discredit  on  his  sources  or  the  use  made  of  the 
data  by  previous  narratives.  He  does  affirm  that,  Hke  a 
true  historian  in  the  spirit  of  a  Thucydides,  he  has  made 
accurate  research  through  all  the  data  at  hand,  both  oral  and 
written,  and  has  endeavored  to  make  an  orderly  presentation 

^  Cf.  Hihhert  Journal,  April,  191 2,  p.  723. 
^Progress  of  Hellenism  in  Alexander's  Empire,  1905,  p.  137. 
^  Nolloth,  The  Rise  of  the  Christian  Religion,  191 7,  note  i,  p.  23. 
*  Cf.  Grenfell  and  Hunt,  Logia  of  Jesus,  1897;  New  Sayings  of  Jesus, 
1904. 


MARK  S  GOSPEL  AND  THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM   29 

of  the  real  facts  in  order  that  his  friend  and  probable  patron 
Theophilus  may  "know  the  certainty  concerning  the  things 
wherein  thou  wast  instructed"  (1:4).  He  subjected  tradi- 
tion to  the  crucible  of  criticism  as  far  as  he  was  able  to  ex- 
ercise it.  We  have  already  seen  the  probable  judgment  of 
the  Apostle  John  (as  reported  by  Papias)  concerning  the 
value  of  Mark's  Gospel.  Then  we  have  the  probable  refer- 
ence of  Luke  to  Mark's  Gospel  as  one  of  the  sources  used 
by  him  in  the  construction  of  his  book.  We  may  grant 
more  literary  skill  to  Luke  than  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  but 
there  is  no  essential  reason  for  doubting  that  they  pursued 
approximately  the  same  method  as  Luke  in  preparing  the 
Gospels  which  we  have.  The  sources  probably  varied  and 
we  must  allow  full  play  for  the  individual  judgment  of  the 
Evangehst.  "We  cannot  lay  down  a  rigid  rule  to  which  all 
use  of  books  would  strictly  conform.  We  must  leave  a 
margin  for  the  habits  of  the  particular  writer.  One  man 
would  trust  his  memory,  and  run  the  risk  of  trusting  his 
memory  for  a  longer  period  than  another."  ^  Did  Luke,  in 
fact,  make  use  of  Mark's  Gospel?  Holtzmann  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  S5moptic  Gospels  ^  makes  a  very  able  and, 
I  think,  conclusive  argument  to  show  that  Mark's  Gospel 
is  one  of  the  main  sources  of  our  canonical  Matthew  and 
Luke.  He  regards  this  as  no  longer  hypothesis,  but  ac- 
knowledged fact.  It  cannot  justly  be  put  quite  so  positively 
as  that  when  Zahn,  as  we  have  seen,  still  ably  contends  that 
Matthew  is  prior  to  Mark  and  that  Mark  made  use  of  Mat- 
thew. To  make  this  seem  at  all  possible  Zahn  has  to  main- 
tain an  early  Aramaic  Matthew  to  which  Mark  had  access. 
To  be  sure,  Matthew  could  be  prior  to  Mark  and  Mark  still 
be  prior  to  Luke.  But,  as  a  rule,  the  scholars  who  make 
Mark  prior  to  Luke  also  place  it  before  Matthew.  Gould 
says:  "That  Holtzmann,  with  his  evident  skepticism,  and 
his  absolute  and  unqualified  rejection  of  mere  traditionahsm, 

1  Sanday,  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  p.  19. 
^Die  Synoptiker  Handcommentar,  3d  edition,  1901. 


30 

should  accept  the  general  historicity  of  the  Synoptics,  is  the 
most  noticeable  element  in  the  whole  situation."  ^  The 
''Two-Document  Hypothesis"  Hes  at  the  basis  of  most  of 
the  progress  made  in  our  knowledge  of  the  origin  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels.  This  position  is  accepted  by  Sanday  and 
the  other  writers  in  the  Oxford  Stiddies  in  the  Synoptic  Prob- 
lem (191 1).  "We  assume  what  is  commonly  known  as  the 
'Two-Document  Hypothesis.'  We  assume  that  the  marked 
resemblances  between  the  first  Three  Gospels  are  due  to  the 
use  of  common  documents,  and  that  the  fundamental  docu- 
ments are  two  in  number"  (p.  2).  These  documents  are 
our  Mark  or  ''a  complete  Gospel  identical  with  our  St. 
Mark's,  which  was  used  by  the  EvangeUsts  whom  we  know 
as  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke,"  and  a  collection  consisting 
mainly  of  discourses  "which  supplied  the  groundwork  of 
certain  common  matter  in  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke."  It 
is  not  dif&cult  for  one  to  see  the  force  of  this  statement  of 
Sanday  if  he  will  look  at  the  parallel  tables  of  matter  common 
to  Mark,  Matthew,  and  Luke  in  any  Harmony  of  the  Gospels 
like  those  of  Broadus  or  Stevens  and  Burton  or  Riddle.  A 
better  way  still  is  to  study  the  fists  in  Hawkins'  Horce  Syn- 
opticce  (2d  edition,  1909)  or  in  AUen's  Commentary  on  Mat- 
thew {International  Critical)  or  in  Swete  on  Mark.  Thus 
one  is  bound  to  see  that  the  same  general  order  of  events  is 
foUowed  and  that  the  framework  of  Mark  lies  at  the  basis 
of  both  Matthew  and  Luke.  Mark's  order  is  "confirmed 
either  by  St.  Matthew  or  St.  Luke,  and  the  greater  part  of 
it  by  both."  ^  St.  Luke  "is  generally  in  fair  agreement 
with  St.  Mark,  when  the  two  are  deafing  with  the  same 
events."  ^  Out  of  106  sections  of  Mark's  Gospel  only  four, 
besides  the  headline,  are  absent  from  both  Matthew  and 
Luke.  Ninety-three  are  in  Matthew  and  eighty-one  in 
Luke.**    There  is  a  great  deal  of  material  in  both  Matthew 

*  International  Critical  Commentary  on  Mark,  p.  xlvii. 

2  H.  H.  Woods,  Stiidia  Biblica,  ii,  p.  62. 

'  Swete,  p.  kiv.  *  Ibid.,  p.  kill. 


mark's  gospel  and  the  synoptic  problem     31 

and  Luke  not  in  Mark,  while  only  one-sixth  of  Mark's  Gos- 
pel occurs  in  it  alone.  And  most  of  this  pecuHar  Marcan 
material  is  due  to  greater  fullness  of  detail  in  the  picturesque 
presentation  of  the  same  events  narrated  in  Matthew  and 
Luke.  There  are,  however,  some  eighty  verses  in  Mark 
that  have  no  parallel  in  Matthew  or  Luke.  It  is  far  more 
likely  that  the  brief  and  life-like  narration  of  Mark  was 
amphfied  by  Matthew  and  Luke  than  that  Mark,  as  Au- 
gustine said,  abbreviated  Matthew  or  Luke.  It  can  be 
shown  that  some  documentary  connection  between  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  is  necessary  by  a  case  like  that  in  Matt. 
9:6;  Mark  2:10;  Luke  5:24,  when  right  in  the  midst  of  a 
saying  of  Jesus  there  is  inserted  in  each  instance  a  parenthet- 
ical comment  of  the  writer:  "Then  saith  he  to  the  sick  of 
the  palsy."  There  are  other  instances  as  clear  as  this.  The 
argument  may  therefore  be  considered  as  complete.  Luke 
did  make  use  of  Mark  and  so  apparently  did  Matthew. 

8.  Mark  and  Q. — The  purpose  of  this  article  does  not  call 
for  an  extensive  discussion  of  Q,  the  other  document  appar- 
ently used  in  common  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  Critics  are 
not  agreed  as  to  the  contents  of  the  hypothetical  Q.^  Some 
would  confine  it  to  the  matter  common  to  Matthew  and 
Luke.  Others  would  assign  to  Q  much  of  the  non-Marcan 
matter  in  either  Matthew  or  Luke.  Others  still  would  make 
it  identical  with  Papias'  Logia  of  Matthew?  But  did  Mark 
have  the  use  of  Q  also?  Wellhausen  wondered  "that  such 
an  investigation  up  to  the  present  has  never  been  set  on 
foot."  ^  But  it  has  been  set  on  foot.  Streeter  has  a  very 
able  treatment  of  St.  Mark^s  Knowledge  and  Use  of  Q.^  He 
argues  that  Mark  knew  and  used  Q  from  memory  and  wrote, 

1  See  Streeter's  The  Original  Extent  ofQ  (Oxford  Studies),  pp.  185-208. 

^Cf.  Sir  John  C.  Hawkins,  Probabilities  as  to  the  So-called  Double 
Tradition  of  St.  Matthew  atid  St.  Luke  {Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic 
Problem),  p.  105. 

3  Einleitung  in  die  drei  ersten  Evangelien,  p.  73. 

*  Oxford  Studies,  pp.  165-183. 


32  STUDIES  IN  MARK'S  GOSPEL 

not  to  supersede  Q,  but  to  supplement  it,  since  Q  consisted 
mainly  of  discourses,  just  as  John  wrote  his  Gospel  to  sup- 
plement the  Synoptic  Gospels.  If  this  is  true,  the  age  of  Q 
becomes  "a  subject  of  deep  interest."  ^ 

It  does  not  fall  within  the  purpose  of  this  article  to  discuss 
the  origin  of  our  canonical  Matthew.  My  own  views  on 
that  subject  are  given  in  the  Introduction  to  my  Handbook 
to  Matthew  in  the  Bible  for  Home  and  School  series.  I  do  not 
feel  that  the  case  of  Matthew  is  as  clear  as  that  of  Luke  who 
discusses  his  use  of  his  sources.^  Papias'  remark  about  the 
Aramaic  Logia  of  Matthew  is  hard  to  set  aside  and  yet  our 
present  Matthew  does  not  appear  to  be  a  translation  of  an 
Aramaic  original.  It  is  quite  possible  that  Matthew  did 
first  prepare  an  Aramaic  Logia  and  that  he  later  wrote  his 
expanded  Gospel  in  Greek.  This  Aramaic  Logia,  translated 
into  Greek,  may  be  the  Q  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke  and 
probably  also  by  Mark. 

We  know  that  Luke  used  Aramaic  sources  (written  or 
oral)  for  the  first  two  chapters  of  his  Gospel  and  probably 
also  for  the  opening  chapters  of  Acts.^  Mark  makes  some 
transUterations  and  then  translations  of  Aramaic  words 
used  by  Jesus  who  certainly  spoke  much,  possibly  mainly, 
in  Aramaic.  But  I  must  contend  that  Jesus  spoke  at  times 
in  the  current  Greek."*  Wellhausen  holds  that  Mark  wrote 
originally  in  Aramaic.  This  view  was  advanced  with  vigor 
in  The  Expositor  (4th  Series)  by  Prof.  J.  T.  Marshall.  Blass 
adheres  to  it  in  his  Philology  of  the  Gospels  (ch.  xi)  as  does 
Allen  in  his  Commentary  on  Matthew.  But  it  is  difficult  to 
think  of  our  Greek  Mark  as  a  translation  and,  as  Swete 
says,  a  translator  would  not  have  both  transliterated  and 

*  Nolloth,  The  Rise  of  the  Christian  Religion,  note,  p.  23. 

2  Cf.  Bartlet,  The  Sources  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel  {Oxford  Studies),  pp.  315- 

^  Cf.  Torrey,  Composition  and  Date  of  Acts,  1916. 

*  Cf.  my  Grammar  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  in  the  Light  of  Historical 
Research,  2d  edition,  1915,  pp.  26-29. 


mark's  gospel  and  the  synoptic  problem     33 

translated  Aramaic  words.  Besides,  Papias  knew  nothing 
of  an  Aramaic  Mark.  Still  less  is  to  be  said  for  the  idea  of 
a  Latin  Mark.  Greek  was  the  language  of  culture  in  Rome 
itself  as  we  see  from  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The 
Latin  terms  in  Mark's  Gospel  are  chiefly  pohtical,  mihtary, 
or  monetary,  as  is  natural. 

It  remains  for  us  to  consider  the  possible  revision  of  Mark's 
Gospel.  Is  our  present  Mark  the  original  Mark?  On  this 
point  Swete  is  clear  and  positive.  ^'The  present  writer  has 
risen  from  his  study  of  the  Gospel  with  a  strong  sense  of  the 
unity  of  the  work,  and  can  echo  the  requiescat  Ur-Markus 
which  ends  a  recent  discussion.  But  he  is  not  prepared  to 
express  an  opinion  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  editorial 
revision  which  St.  Mark's  original  has  undergone — a  point 
which  he  desires  to  reserve  for  further  consideration."  ^ 
This  judgment  probably  represents  the  sanest  criticism  of 
the  day.  There  are  some  indications  in  our  present  Mark 
of  editorial  additions  of  a  later  date  than  the  original  work. 
The  most  important  of  these  is,  of  course,  the  disputed 
ending  after  i6:8  which  occurs  in  three  forms.  Some  ev- 
idence exists  also  of  the  use  of  Matthew's  Gospel  by  Mark 
as  we  now  have  it.  This  evidence  is  not  conclusive  in  spite 
of  the  argxmients  of  Schmiedel  in  the  article  Gospels  in  the 
Encyclopedia  Bihlica.  Maclean  ^  properly  terms  these 
*' doubtful  cases."  The  priority  of  our  Mark  in  these  in- 
stances to  Matthew  and  Luke  is  not  certain.  But  editorial 
revision  will  account  sufficiently  for  these  few  instances, 
if  they  are  really  later.  Bacon  is  certain  of  this  redactor  and 
undertakes  to  point  out  the  extent  of  his  work.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  a  few  additions  were  made  to  the  original  Mark 
by  the  author  himseK.  So  Salmon  calls  Mark  "at  once  the 
oldest  and  the  youngest  of  the  Synoptics."  Dr.  A.  Wright 
is  a  strong  advocate  of  three  editions  of  Mark's  Gospel  issued 

*  Footnote  to  pp.  Iviii  and  lix, 

2  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels^  article  on  Mark's 
Gospel. 


34  STUDIES  IN  mark's  GOSPEL 

by  Mark  himself.^  There  is  no  doubt  at  all  that  Mark  used 
a  variety  of  sources  for  his  Gospel  as  did  Matthew  and  Luke. 
It  is  not  possible  and  not  necessary  to  decide  every  detail 
about  his  sources;  one  need  not  be  so  "over-elaborate."^ 
There  were,  indeed,  major  sources  and  minor  sources  for 
each  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  as  Burton  holds.^ 

If  Mark  used  Q,  this  ancient  document  comes  near  the 
time  of  our  Lord's  ministry  and  death.  We  seem  to  be  on 
terra  firma  in  synoptic  criticism  in  spite  of  many  complex- 
ities and  perplexities.  The  historical  worth  of  Mark  and  of 
Q  is  not  to  be  Hghtly  set  aside.  Criticism  can  claim  that  it 
has  restored  to  modern  scholars  the  historical  character  of 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  as  the  result  of  a  century  of  discussion. 
The  modern  man  can  employ  with  confidence  the  same  in- 
tellectual tools  here  that  he  uses  in  his  other  studies.  And 
in  Mark  and  Q  he  is  face  to  face  with  Jesus  Christ  in  all  his 
glorious  humanity  and  his  wondrous  deity,  Son  of  man  and 
Son  of  God. 

1  The  Composition  of  the  Four  Gospels,  1890. 
2Patton,  Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  1915,  p.  82. 

2  Principles  of  Literary  Criticism  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  1904,  p.  49. 


CHAPTER  IV 

Peter's  influence  on  mark^s  gospel  * 

"Even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us,  who  from  the  beginning  were 
eyewitnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word."    Luke  1:2. 

I.  Importance  of  the  Subject. — The  influence  of  Peter  on 
Mark's  Gospel  is  a  matter  of  so  much  importance  that  it 
calls  for  separate  and  detailed  discussion  in  addition  to  the 
various  allusions  already  made  to  the  subject.  The  modern 
theories  of  the  origin  of  Mark's  Gospel  all  postulate  the  dis- 
courses of  Simon  Peter  as  the  chief  source.  Even  Pfleiderer 
admits  that  Mark  was  "in  close  touch  with  Peter  and  the 
early  congregation."  ^  "Nothing  can  be  urged  against  the 
clearest  tradition  that  this  Gospel  was  written  by  John 
Mark,"  and,  he  adds,  about  70  a.  d.  He  considers  Mark  as 
much  a  pupil  of  Paul  as  of  Peter:  "Such  a  man  may  well 
have  been  the  author  of  the  Gospel  which  unites  the  Jesus 
of  the  Palestinian  tradition,  the  energetic  hero  of  a  Jewish 
reform  movement,  with  the  Christ  of  the  Pauline  theology, 
the  suffering  hero  of  a  world  mystical  religion."  ^  Bruno 
Bauer,  indeed,  holds  that  "  the  life  of  Jesus  does  not  belong 
to  history,  but  is  the  invention  of  the  evangelist  Mark,  who, 
in  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  used  the  philosophic  ideas  of  his  time 
to  sketch  the  ideal  picture  of  a  popular  king  as  opposed  to 
the  Roman  Caesars."  ^  But  behind  Mark  stands  the  figure 
of  Simon  Peter.    Von  Soden  boldly  describes  this  Gospel  as 

1  The  Methodist  Review  (Nashville),  April,  1918. 

2  Christian  Origins^  transl.,  1906,  p.  222. 
Uhid. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  18. 

35 


36  STUDIES  IN  mark's  GOSPEL 

"The  Reminiscences  of  St.  Peter  written  by  St.  Mark,"* 
though  he  holds  to  the  redactor  theory  (page  149)  for  our 
present  Mark.  Von  Soden's  estimate  of  Mark  and  Matthew 
is  a  good  antidote  for  Schweitzer's  pessimism: 

"  Never  has  mankind  Hstened  to  simpler,  more  direct,  more 
living;  and  more  convincing  narratives  drawn  from  the  life 
of  one  of  the  great  ones  of  human  history.  Never  has  there 
been  bestowed  upon  men  a  work  of  purer  literary  art — a  work 
wherein  the  artist  is  more  completely  effaced  by  his  subject — 
than  in  these  two  original  Gospels."  ^ 

2.  The  Early  Testimony. — But  why  must  we  consider 
Peter  the  chief  source  of  Mark's  Gospel?  The  testimony  of 
the  early  Christian  writers  is  specific  on  this  point.  Papias 
is  the  first.    He  says,  as  quoted  in  Eusebius: 

"And  this  the  Elder  said:  Mark,  indeed,  became  Peter's 
interpreter  and  wrote  accurately  as  many  things  as  he  re- 
membered of  the  things  said  or  done  by  Christ,  not,  however, 
in  order.  For  neither  did  he  hear  the  Lord  nor  did  he  follow 
at  his  side;  but  afterwards,  as  I  said  (he  followed)  Peter,  who 
used  to  adapt  his  teachings  to  the  needs  (of  his  hearers), 
but  not  as  though  he  were  making  a  connected  (or  full) 
account  of  the  Lord's  discourses.  So  then  Mark  made  no 
mistake  in  thus  writing  some  things  as  he  recalled  them;  for 
he  took  thought  for  one  thing  not  to  omit  anything  of  what 
he  heard  nor  to  make  any  false  statement  therein." 

We  could  sincerely  wish  that  Papias  had  said  more,  or  that, 
if  he  did,  Eusebius  had  quoted  all  of  it.  Still,  we  do  have 
quite  a  deal  in  this  statement  of  Papias  which  belongs  to  the 
period  A.  D.  125-140.  The  Elder  is  here  the  Presbyter  John, 
who  is  identified  by  Zahn  with  the  Apostle  John.^  For  a 
defense  of  the  view  that  the  Elder  John  and  the  Apostle 
John  are  one  and  the  same,  see  Dom  Chapman's  Joht  the 
Presbyter  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  (191 1).     If  the  Elder  here 

1  The  History  of  Early  Christian  Literature,  transl.,  1906,  p.  142. 

^Ihid.,  p.  153. 

3  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  transl.,  vol.  ii,  1909,  p.  438. 


37 

is  the  Apostle  John,  then  Papias  records  ''this  estimate  of 
Mark's  writing,"  ^  the  recollections  of  Peter,  from  the  Apostle 
John  himself.  We  have  John's  opinion  of  the  worth  of  Peter's 
discourses  about  Jesus  and  of  Mark's  report  of  them.  Here 
we  touch  Gospel  criticism  in  its  early  stages,  and  it  is  a  re- 
freshing glimpse  that  we  get  of  the  whole  subject.  Zahn  ^ 
thinks  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  "shows  clear  traces  of  its 
author's  acquaintance  with  Mark."  It  is  generally  admitted 
that  Luke  used  Mark  as  one  of  his  sources,  and  refers  to  him 
in  his  Gospel  (1:1-4).  If  so,  we  have  two  references  to  Mark's 
work  by  writers  of  the  Gospels  (first  in  Luke  and  later  in  the 
quotation  in  Papias).  Luke  gives  no  details,  but  John  does, 
as  reported  by  Papias. 

It  is  extremely  interesting  to  examine  carefully  what  John 
has  to  say  about  Mark's  Gospel,  since  John  wrote  the  Fourth 
Gospel  with  full  knowledge  of  what  Mark  and  the  rest  had 
written.  We  have,  to  be  sure,  only  Papias'  interpretation 
of  the  Elder's  views  about  Mark,  and  the  passage  is  quite 
condensed.  But  a  number  of  points  stand  out  clearly.  It 
is  not  said  that  Mark's  Gospel  contains  nothing  except  what 
Peter  said.  We  are  not  to  think  of  Peter  dictating  the  Gospel 
to  Mark  who  merely  acted  as  Peter's  amenuensis,  as  Tertius 
did  for  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (16:22).  Justin  Martyr 
says  that  Jesus  "imposed  on  one  of  the  apostles  the  name 
Peter,  and  when  this  accorded  in  his  'Memoirs'  {aTrofivrj/xovev- 
pxiTa)  with  this  other  fact  that  he  named  the  two  sons  of 
Zebedee  'Boanerges,'  which  means  'Sons  of  Thunder,'"  etc. 
Evidently  Justin  means  to  term  Mark's  Gospel  "Peter's 
Memoirs,"  after  the  analogy  of  Xenophon's  "Memorabilia 
of  Socrates."  Origen  also  says :  "The  Second  is  that  according 
to  Mark  who  prepared  it,  as  Peter  guided  him,  who  therefore, 
in  his  catholic  epistle  acknowledged  the  evangehst  as  his 
son."  Origen  not  only  held  that  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  while 
Peter  was  alive  and  before  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  was 
written,  but  under  the  immediate  supervision  of  Peter, 
1  Zahn,  op.  cit.,  p.  444.  ^  Ibid. 


38  STUDIES  IN  mark's  GOSPEL 

though  not  necessarily  at  his  dictation.  But  Tertullian 
speaks  of ''  that  which  was  pubHshed  by  Mark,  for  it  may  be 
attributed  to  Peter,  whose  interpreter  Mark  was."  Papias 
does  call  Mark  Peter's  interpreter  {kpfi-qvevrri^  Jlirpov  or 
dragoman,  but  he  does  not  say  that  Peter  acted  in  that 
capacity  in  the  writing  of  his  Gospel.  In  fact,  he  really 
affirms  that  he  did  not  do  so,  for  the  words  "as  many  as 
he  remembered"  (oo-a  ifivrj/xoveva-ev)  naturally  means  that 
Mark  wrote  out  his  recollections  after  hearing  Peter  speak. 
It  was  not  strictly  shorthand  copy,  unless  brief  notes,  but 
recollections  after  the  discourse  was  over.  The  interval  may 
have  been  very  brief  in  most  cases  as  it  probably  was,  "writing 
thus  some  things  as  he  recalled  them"  (ovtcjs  evua  ypdif/as 
ws  aTreixvrjfioveva-ev).  Irenaeus  seems  to  affirm  that  Peter  and 
Paul  were  both  dead  when  Mark  wrote  out  his  reminiscences 
of  Peter's  discourses  about  Jesus.  "But,  after  the  depar- 
ture (eioSov)  of  these,  Mark,  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of 
Peter,  even  he  has  handed  down  to  us  the  things  that  were 
preached  by  Peter."  It  has  been  argued  by  some  that  Peter 
had  in  mind  Mark's  Gospel  in  2  Peter  i  :i5:  "Yea,  I  will  give 
diligence  that  at  every  time  ye  may  be  able  after  my  decease 
(cloSov)  to  call  these  things  to  remembrance"  (ttjv  tovtwv 
fivT^firjv  iroieia-Oai)  as  Mark  did.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
also  that  Peter  calls  himself  and  others  "eyewitnesses" 
(eTTOTTTai)  of  the  majesty  of  Jesus  on  the  Mount  of  Trans- 
figuration as  Luke  spoke  of  consulting  "eyewitnesses" 
{avTcnrrai)  for  his  Gospel  (1:2).  Clement  of  Alexandria 
takes  the  view  that  Peter  knew  of  Mark's  purpose  to  write 
his  Gospel  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Roman  Christians:  "When 
Peter  learned  it,  he  neither  eagerly  hindered  nor  approved 
it."  But  Jerome  says:  "When  Peter  heard  of  it,  he  gave  his 
approval  and  authorized  it  to  be  read  in  the  churches." 
Jerome  actually  says:  "As  the  blessed  Peter  had  Mark  whose 
Gospel  was  prepared,  Peter  narrating  and  Mark  writing." 
One  can  but  feel  that  the  tradition  about  Peter's  connection 
with  Mark's  Gospel  has  thus  grown  through  the  centuries 


39 

since  the  simple  statement  of  Papias.  Eusebius,  who  pre- 
serves Papias'  words  for  us,  has  this  addition:  "When  the 
apostle  knew,  by  revelation  of  the  Spirit,  what  was  done, 
he  was  pleased  with  the  eagerness  of  the  men  and  authorized 
the  writing  to  be  read  in  the  churches  "  Eusebius  also  has 
this:  "Though  Peter  did  not  undertake,  through  excess  of 
diffidence,  to  write  a  Gospel,  yet  it  was  all  along  commonly 
said  that  Mark,  who  had  become  his  intimate  acquaintance 
and  companion,  made  memoirs  {aTrofjLvrjfjioveva-aL)  of  the  dis- 
courses of  Peter  concerning  the  deeds  of  Jesus."  The  con- 
clusion of  Eusebius  is  therefore:  "Mark,  indeed,  writes  this; 
but  it  is  Peter  who  so  witnesses  about  himself,  for  all  that 
is  in  Mark  are  memoirs  of  the  discourses  of  Peter."  Here, 
then,  Eusebius  attributes  the  whole  of  Mark's  Gospel  to 
Peter.  Papias  does  not  say  this,  and,  in  fact,  rather  implies 
the  contrary,  though  clearly  making  Peter's  discourses  the 
main  source  of  the  Second  Gospel.  Modern  criticism  here 
agrees  with  Papias  rather  than  with  Eusebius  and  Jerome. 
Mark  almost  certainly  had  other  sources  of  information. 
Papias  does  not  say  whether  Peter  was  alive  or  not  when 
Mark  wrote  down  his  recollection  of  the  discourses.  There 
is  no  inherent  probability  against  the  position  that  Peter 
was  aHve.  He  may  even  have  seen  Mark's  Gospel  and  have 
approved  it,  but  he  did  not  dictate  it.  This  is  clear  from 
modern  study.  Mark  is  wholly  responsible  for  what  he  put 
into  the  book.  He  acted  as  a  real  author  and  composed  the 
Gospel  with  the  best  sources  at  his  disposal,  and  reHed  chiefly 
on  Peter's  sermons.  The  Apostle  John  and  Papias  commend 
him  for  so  doing.  In  a  true  sense,  therefore,  the  Second 
Gospel  is  "Peter's  Memorabilia  of  Jesus,"  but  Mark  is 
responsible  for  the  hterary  aspects  of  the  book. 

3.  Mark^s  Gospel  More  than  a  Collection  of  Discourses. — 
Mark's  Gospel  is  more  than  a  collection  of  discourses.  This 
Papias  makes  clear.  It  is  true  that  Papias  speaks  of  "the 
Lord's  discourses"  (rwv  KvptaKwv  \oytW),  and  that  this  is 
the  probable  meaning  here  of  Logia,  though  the  word  is  ap- 


40 

plied  to  narrative  as  well  as  sayings.  It  is  "a  little  word," 
a  brief  oracle,  then  any  utterance  without  regard  to  its  length. 
In  the  New  Testament  the  word  is  applied  also  to  the  con- 
tents of  the  Mosaic  law  (Acts  7:38),  and  then  to  the  substance 
of  the  Christian  religion  (Hebrews  5:12).  But  it  is  evident 
that  Mark,  according  to  Papias,  did  more  than  write  down 
the  sayings  of  Jesus,  for  he  describes  this  Gospel  as  containing 
*'  the  things  said  or  done  by  Christ"  to,  virb  rov  Xpua-Tov  XexOevra 
7j  TTpaxOevTo) ,  Peter  discussed  in  his  discourses  both  the  deeds 
and  the  words  of  Jesus,  as  we  see  from  Acts  10:34-41. 
When  we  turn  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  we  find  in  it  more 
of  the  deeds  than  the  sayings  of  Christ,  and  it  is  in  Mat- 
thew, Luke,  and  John  that  we  find  more  of  the  discourses 
of  Christ.  The  modem  theory  is  that  the  Logia  of  Jesus, 
representing  a  collection  of  Christ's  sayings,  and  possibly 
made  by  Matthew  himself,  is  used  along  with  Mark  as  the 
two  main  sources  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  Mark  gives  the 
narrative  and  Q  (the  Logia)  the  discourses.  But  Mark  is 
not  without  sayings  of  Christ,  including  some  parables  and 
the  eschatological  discourse  in  ch.  13  (the  so-called  Little 
Apocalypse).  There  is  nothing  in  our  canonical  Mark  that 
makes  it  more  unlikely  that  Papias'  description  applies  to  it. 
We  do  not  need  to  picture  an  ^'Ur-Marcus"  for  Papias. 

4.  Mark's  Use  of  His  Material. — Papias  quotes  the  Elder 
as  saying  that  Mark  wrote  "not  in  order"  (ov /ao/toi  ra^et), 
and  "not  as  if  he  were  making  a  connected  arrangement  of 
the  Lord's  discourses"  {ovx  (ocnrep  o-wra^tv  twv  KvptaKwv 
wotovfievos  XoytW).  But  modern  criticism  finds  the  order 
of  Mark  preserved  almost  exactly  in  Luke  and  in  its  broad 
features  in  Matthew,  who  is  topical  in  certain  portions  of 
his  Gospel.  Luke  claims  to  write  "in  order"  (Kade^ij^,  1:3), 
and  Luke's  "order"  is  that  of  Mark.  It  is  likely,  however, 
that  Papias  does  not  mean  quite  the  same  by  his  "order" 
that  Papias  does.  Luke  has  endeavored  to  produce  a  fairly 
complete  and  systematic  presentation  of  his  material  in 
chronological  order  in  the  main.    Mark,  according  to  Papias, 


PETER^S  INFLUENCE   ON  MARk's  GOSPEL  4 1 

is  a  rather  incomplete  setting  forth  of  certain  aspects  of 
Christ's  Ufe  derived  chiefly  from  Peter's  discourses  about 
Jesus.  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Mark's  Gospel  has  nothing 
about  the  infancy  and  the  early  life  of  Jesus  as  we  have  in 
Matthew  and  in  Luke,  and  nothing  concerning  the  early 
ministry  as  we  find  in  John.  It  is,  after  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
by  John,  mainly  a  sketch  of  the  Galilean  ministry  with  some 
incidents  of  the  last  year  away  from  GaUlee  and  the  picture 
of  Passion  Week.  This  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  sketch 
of  Peter's  preaching  in  Acts  10:34-41,  but  is  also  in  accord 
with  the  description  of  Papias,  who  insists  that  Mark  wrote 
*' accurately "  (dKptySws),  just  as  Luke  claimed  for  his  work 
(1:3).  Indeed,  Papias  insists,  on  the  authority  of  the  Elder, 
that  Mark's  one  concern  was  to  make  no  mistake,  either  by 
omission  of  what  he  knew  or  by  false  statement.  Here,  again, 
Mark  is  justified  in  modern  criticism,  which  bears  witness 
to  the  skill  and  accuracy  of  his  work.  First  place  in  historical 
value  is  accorded  Mark's  Gospel  because  it  ranks  first  in 
order  of  time  and  is  incorporated  almost  bodily  into  Matthew 
and  Luke.  This  is  not  to  discredit  Matthew  and  Luke,  but 
simply  to  say  that  in  Mark  we  possess  the  chief  source  used 
by  both  of  them. 

Papias  does  not  say  that  Mark  reproduced  everything 
that  Peter  said.  It  was  not  a  mechanical  performance  on 
Mark's  part,  but  he  did  his  work,  "writing  thus  some  things 
(evta)  as  he  recalled  them."  The  use  of  "some"  imphes  that 
he  made  a  selection  out  of  the  numerous  discourses  of  Peter, 
of  which  he  may  have  made  notes,  but  took  pains  not  to 
pass  anything  by  {TrapaXnrdv)  that  was  really  important, 
and,  in  particular,  not  to  tell  an  untruth  (if/cvcraa-OaL  rt). 
This  is  a  pleasing  word  for  any  historian's  work.  Mark  did 
not  give  way  to  fancy  or  to  legend,  of  which  we  see  a  riot  in 
the  Apocryphal  Gospels.  He  did  not  invent  incidents  to 
embelHsh  his  narrative  or  to  enhance  the  power  and  glory 
of  Jesus.  He  did  not  make  up  discourses  for  Jesus  as  Thucyd- 
ides  did  for  his  heroes.    Mark  indulged  in  no  eulogy  of  Jesus. 


42 

He  told  in  straightforward  manner  the  simple,  unvarnished 
story  of  the  facts  as  he  had  heard  Peter  do.  The  facts  and 
words  of  Jesus  are  more  eloquent  than  any  adjectives  that 
can  be  applied  to  them.  They  speak  for  themselves.  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  follow  Mark  in  their  wondrous  restraint  in 
picturing  Jesus.  This  characteristic  simpHcity  is  the  very 
highest  art,  and  partly  explains  how  these  Gospels  rank  as 
the  greatest  literary  productions  of  the  ages  through  sheer 
reality.  There  is  the  utter  absence  of  anything  artificial  or 
dramatic,  though  the  action  itseK  is  overwhelming.  It  is 
the  greatest  story  of  the  ages  told  in  the  current  vernacular 
Greek  by  simple-minded  men  who  had  no  literary  aspirations. 
They  have  excelled  all  other  writers  because  they  have  seen 
Jesus  only  and  have  been  willing  to  let  the  words  and  deeds 
of  Christ  speak  for  themselves.  Thus  the  very  absence 
of  artifice  has  become  consummate  and  unapproachable  art. 
To  be  sure,  they  had  the  supreme  subject,  but  so  had  the 
Apocrj^hal  Gospels  with  their  silly  stories  and  legends. 
The  difference  lies  in  the  element  of  reaUty  and  truth.  The 
Gospels  surpass  all  other  books  because  the  words  of  Jesus 
are  the  most  original  and  vital  of  all  time,  and  because  his 
life  is  the  highest  conception  of  God  that  the  world  knows. 
The  Gospels  in  utter  childlike  simphcity  succeed  in  taking 
Jesus  as  he  is  and  letting  us  see  him.  They  do  it,  each  in  his 
own  way,  but  they  all  do  this  supreme  thing.  Forever  we 
must,  therefore,  come  back  to  the  Gospels  for  our  Picture  of 
Christ.  At  bottom  the  Picture  comes  from  Peter  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  and  John  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 

5.  Peter^s  Eyes. — In  Mark's  Gospel  we  catch  the  first  draft 
of  the  portrait.  Mark  has  been  willing  and  able  to  use 
Peter's  eyes  for  us.  He  has  left  the  little  turns  of  speech  that 
Peter  used  to  give  color  to  his  discourses.  So  in  Mark  we  see 
Jesus  with  more  distinctness  of  outHne  than  in  any  of  the 
Gospels.  We  see  him  at  work,  almost  hear  his  voice.  If 
one  looks  at  his  harmony  of  the  Gospels,  he  will  see  that 
many  of  the  vivid  touches  in  Matthew  and  Luke  really  come 


PETER  S  INFLUENCE  ON  MARK  S  GOSPEL      43 

from  Mark,  though  they  do  omit  many  that  are  in  the  original 
passage  in  Mark.  Mark's  love  of  the  historical  present  is 
largely  dropped  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  as  Hawkins  shows 
so  clearly  in  his  HorcB  Synopticm.  Mark  is  more  fond  of  the 
imperfect  tense  than  any  of  the  Gospels.  Here,  again,  he  is 
probably  seeing  through  the  eyes  of  Peter,  who  thus  pictured 
the  scene  for  his  hearers.  We  see  the  same  vividness  in 
Mark's  constant  use  of  "  straightway."  It  is  all  action  and 
movement  like  real  life. 

It  is  clear  that  in  Mark's  Gospel  we  have  reports  that 
come  from  an  eyewitness.  This  can  be  shown  abundantly 
in  the  many  httle  details  that  occur  in  Mark's  Gospel  alone. 
His  Gospel  is  the  briefest  of  all,  and  yet  it  is  often  fullest  when 
he  does  give  an  incident,  for  the  very  reason  that  he  supplies 
so  many  little  items  that  fill  out  the  picture.  Most  of  them  are 
just  the  things  that  an  alert  mind  like  that  of  Peter  would 
notice.  It  will  be  interesting  to  note  some  of  them,  though 
by  no  means  all.  In  Mark  1:29-37  we  have  an  incident 
that  is  obviously  Petrine.  After  preaching  in  the  synagogue 
in  Capernaum,  Jesus  went  with  James  and  John  to  ''the 
house  of  Simon  and  Andrew."  Mark  alone  has  "and  An- 
drew." Evidently  Andrew,  probably  a  bachelor,  lived  with 
his  brother  Peter's  family.  Peter  delicately  includes  An- 
drew as  copartner  in  the  house.  But  Jesus  is  here  for  dinner, 
like  our  Sunday  dinner  after  church,  and  Peter's  mother-in- 
law  is  ill  of  fever,  probably  a  sudden  attack.  ''And  straight- 
way they  tell  him  of  her,"  Mark  notes  with  his  love  for  the 
historical  present  and  with  the  vivid  narrative  of  Peter  in  his 
mind.  Mark  drops  back  into  the  past  tense,  but  preserves 
the  picturesque  details  which  he  remembers  from  Peter's 
story:  "He  came  and  took  her  by  the  hand  and  raised  her 
up,"  just  like  the  loving  Physician  that  Jesus  was.  We  see 
Jesus  standing  by  the  bedside  and  tenderly  taking  the  hand 
of  the  sick  woman.  That  evening,  when  the  sun  did  set, 
Mark  says  that  a  great  crowd  of  sick  folk  came.  They  had 
heard  of  the  heaUng  of  the  demoniac  in  the  synagogue  that 


44 

morning,  and  then  of  the  cure  of  Peter's  mother-in-law.  So 
here  they  come  with  all  sorts  (TrotKtAats,  variegated  like  many 
colors)  of  diseases.  *'And  all  the  city  was  gathered  together 
at  the  door,"  Mark  says.  Probably  Jesus  stood  in  the  door 
and  healed  them  as  they  passed  by,  a  wondering  throng.  It 
was  Peter's  door,  and  he  probably  stood  proudly  near  Jesus 
as  he  healed  the  moving  procession.  It  is  easy  to  see  why 
Peter  should  have  mentioned  ''the  door."  Next  morning 
*'a  great  while  before  day"  (Mark  has  it)  Jesus  rose  up  and 
went  out  from  Peter's  house,  probably  not  without  Peter's 
observing  it  and  wondering  about  it.  Jesus  went  to  "a  desert 
place  and  there  prayed"  (Trpoarjvx^To,  imperfect  tense)  along 
time,  kept  on  pra3dng,  was  still  praying  when  Peter  "found 
him."  For  Peter  had  the  crowds  on  his  hands  when  day  came 
and  did  not  know  what  to  do  with  them.  Not  yet  had  Peter 
begun  to  heal  the  sick.  So  ''Simon  and  they  that  were  with 
him  followed  after  hun"  till  they  "found  him."  Peter  led  a 
search  party  for  Jesus  in  the  early  dawn  and  found  him  at 
prayer.  Mark  uses  a  very  striking  word  for  "followed  after" 
(KareSttolev).  It  means  pursue,  to  rush  down  upon  as  in  a 
chase  for  game.  Paul  uses  the  simple  verb  (StwKw)  twice 
of  his  passionate  pursuit  of  Christ  his  goal  (Philippians  3:12, 
14) .  Probably  Peter,  in  telling  the  incident,  said : "  We  rushed 
(KareStwIa/Aei/)  out  of  the  house  after  Jesus,"  unless  he  told  it  in 
Aramaic.  If  so,  then  this  is  Mark's  translation  of  Peter's 
vivid  description.  Mark  feels  the  touch  of  life  in  his  style 
and  goes  on  with  the  historical  present:  "And  say  unto  him, 
All  are  seeking  thee"  (preserving  here  Peter's  own  words  in 
the  direct  discourse). 

Not  all  the  incidents  in  Mark's  Gospel  are  as  closely  linked 
with  Peter's  own  Hfe  as  the  one  above,  but  many  others  reveal 
the  same  traits  of  the  eyewitness  who  is  telling  what  he  has 
seen  with  his  own  eyes.  The  healing  of  the  paralytic  let  down 
through  the  roof  is  a  case  in  point.  Mark  says,  "It  was 
noised  that  he  was  in  the  house,"  possibly  Peter's  house  again. 
At  any  rate,  we  catch  Peter's  quick  eyes  in  the  narrative  of 


45 

Mark.  The  crowd  was  so  great  ''that  there  was  no  longer 
room  for  them,  no,  not  even  about  the  door."  The  other 
time  the  crowd  passed  on  by  the  door,  but  here  they  stood 
and  Ustened  to  Jesus  and  blocked  the  door.  Besides,  that 
was  a  local  crowd  from  Capernaum,  while  this  crowd  came 
''out  of  every  village  of  Galilee  and  Judea  and  Jerusalem" 
(Luke  5:17).  Through  this  press  and  jam  ''they  come  [his- 
torical present  again]  bringing  unto  him  a  man  sick  of  the 
..palsy,  borne  of  four"  (alone  in  Mark).  All  this  Peter's  eye 
took  in.  What  were  the  men  to  do?  "They  could  not  come 
nigh  unto  him  for  the  crowd."  They  evidently  climbed  up  the 
outside  stairway  to  the  flat  roof,  carrying  the  man  as  they 
went.  Then  "they  uncovered  the  roof  where  he  was," 
right  over  Jesus.  "And  when  they  had  broken  it  up  (dug 
up  the  tiles),  they  let  down  the  bed  whereon  the  sick  of  the 
palsy  lay."  It  was  a  dramatic  moment,  and  the  courage 
and  faith  of  these  four  men  at  once  caught  the  attention  of 
Jesus,  who  turned  and  said:  "Son,  thy  sins  are  forgiven." 
This  Jesus  said  without  healing  the  palsied  man.  Perhaps 
his  palsy  was  due  to  sin  on  the  man's  part.  But  this  claim  of 
power  to  forgive  sins,  as  if  Jesus  were  God,  gave  the  Pharisees 
present  a  jolt.  Mark  says,  "But  there  were  certain  of  the 
scribes  sitting  there,"  in  a  bunch,  off  to  one  side.  Peter  no- 
ticed them  and  the  quick  interchange  of  glances  between 
them  at  this  "blasphemous "  claim  of  Jesus.  They  "reasoned 
within  themselves,"  but  Jesus  read  their  hearts.  Peter  and 
all  of  them  felt  the  tenseness  of  the  situation.  It  was  electric, 
and  Peter  never  forgot  it.  Jesus,  "perceiving  in  his  spirit," 
Mark  says,  that  the  Pharisees  were  thus  reasoning  about 
him,  proceeds  to  heal  the  man  to  prove  the  truth  of  his  claim 
to  power  to  forgive  sins:  "But  that  ye  may  know  that  the 
Son  of  man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (he  saith  to 
the  sick  of  the  palsy),  I  say  unto  thee,  Arise,  take  up  thy 
bed,  and  go  into  thy  house."  The  parenthesis  is  in  a  curious 
place,  right  in  the  middle  of  the  sentence,  and  occurs  in  the 
same  place  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  obviously  taken  from 


46 

Mark.  But  why  did  Mark  put  it  there?  Probably  Peter 
did  it  in  his  preaching.  "He  says  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy" 
is  something  like  our  "says  he,"  which  in  conversation  is 
thrown  in  almost  anywhere.  The  man  got  up  and  "went 
forth  before  them  all."  The  crowd  in  amazement  glorified 
God:  "We  never  saw  it  on  this  fashion."  It  is  hardly  possible 
to  find  a  liveher  picture  than  Mark  has  here  drawn. 

So  we  might  go  on,  if  we  had  space  and  time,  to  other  scenes 
in  Mark's  Gospel.  In  Capernaum,  "when  he  was  in  the 
house"  (Mark  9:33)  again,  probably  Peter's  house  still, 
Jesus  took  a  little  child  and  "set  him  in  the  midst,"  "taking 
him  in  his  arms"  (9:36).  Tradition  has  it  that  it  was  Peter's 
own  child  who  was  thus  used  to  rebuke  the  jealousy  of  the 
Twelve.  One  is  tempted  to  linger  over  many  like  details  in 
Mark's  Gospel  that  reveal  the  eye  of  Peter,  like  the  deep  sigh 
of  Jesus  (8:12),  the  look  of  love  cast  upon  the  rich  young  ruler 
(10:21),  the  indignation  of  Christ  (10:14),  the  amazement  and 
fear  of  the  disciples  at  the  expression  of  Jesus  (10:33),  the 
sudden  spring  of  Bartimaeus  as  he  flung  away  his  garment  and 
followed  Jesus  (10:50),  seeing  the  fig  tree  afar  off  (11:13), 
Peter's  recalling  the  incident  next  day  (11:21). 

We  see,  then,  that  there  is  ample  reason  for  the  sober  con- 
clusion of  modern  scholarship  that  in  Mark's  Gospel  we  are 
dealing  primarily  with  Peter's  interpretation  of  Christ  after 
his  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost.  It  is  the  en- 
lightened and  understanding  Peter  whom  Mark  reports, 
and  whose  message  is  thus  passed  on  to  all  the  ages.  It  is 
quite  possible  that  Mark  made  notes  of  Peter's  preaching 
from  time  to  time,  beginning  at  an  early  date,  and  using  this 
and  other  data  for  the  final  book  which  we  possess.  The  proof 
for  the  influence  of  Peter  on  Mark's  Gospel  rests  on  good  evi- 
dence and  is  amply  confirmed  by  the  phenomena  in  the 
Gospel  itself. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  MIRACULOUS   ELEMENT  IN  MARK'S   GOSPEL  ^ 

"And  at  even,  when  the  sun  did  set,  they  brought  unto  him  all  that 
were  sick,  and  them  that  were  possessed  with  demons.  And  all  the  city- 
was  gathered  together  at  the  door."    Mark  1:32-3. 

I.  The  Miraculous  Still  in  Mark. — For  a  while  Mark's 
Gospel  had  quite  a  vogue  with  certain  critics  who  hoped  by 
means  of  it  to  get  rid  of  the  Johannine  Christ  and  the  Paul- 
ine Christ.  In  Mark  we  have  the  *' Historical  Jesus"  instead 
of  the  ''Theological  Christ."  ^  But  the  issue  is  now  seen  to 
be  quite  otherwise.     Pfleiderer  confesses  it: 

*'0n  the  other  hand,  it  must  not  be  overlooked  that  even 
this  oldest  Gospel-writer  is  guided  by  a  decided  apologetic 
purpose  in  the  selection  and  manipulation  of  his  material. 
He  wrote  for  Heathen-Christians  and  wished  to  awaken  or 
confirm  the  conviction  that  despite  the  rejection  by  the 
Jews,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  proven  to  be  the  Christ  and  the 
Son  of  God  by  wonders  and  signs  of  every  kind,  especially 
by  the  wonders  of  baptism,  transfiguration,  and  resurrection, 
that  his  victorious  struggle  against  the  Jewish  priestly  and 
liturgical  service  erected  a  new  Temple  beyond  the  senses 
in  the  congregation  of  Christ-believers  in  the  place  of  the 
old  one  of  the  senses,  and  that  by  the  blood  which  he  had 
shed  for  many,  he  established  a  new  covenant  to  take  the 
place  of  the  old  covenant  of  the  law."  ^ 

Here  Pfleiderer  has  correctly  presented  the  purpose  and 
method  of  Mark's  Gospel,  though  he  himself  has  no  sympa- 

1  The  Biblical  World  (Chicago),  May,  1918. 

2  Cf.  J.  Estlin  Carpenter,  The  Historical  Jesus  and  the  Theological  Christ. 
^Christian  Origins,  transl.,  1906,  p.  219. 

47 


48  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

thy  with  that  purpose.^  He  notes  that  Mark  is  free  from 
the  stories  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  found  in  Matthew  and  Luke, 
"rehgious  legends  of  no  historical  value,"  ^  but  even  Mark 
gives  ''the  miraculous  event  of  the  messianic  sanctification 
of  Jesus  by  a  celestial  voice  and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  shape  of  a  dove"  which  *'is  self -evidently  not  history, 
but  legend."  ^ 

2.  Jesus  Himself  the  Chief  Miracle. — It  is  clear,  therefore, 
that  we  have  not  reached  soUd  ground  with  critics  like 
Pfleiderer  when  we  get  back  of  John  and  Paul,  back  of  Luke 
and  Matthew,  to  Mark  and  Q  (the  Logia  of  Jesus).  These 
earliest  sources  of  our  knowledge  of  Jesus  are  vitiated 
for  them  by  the  presence  of  the  miraculous  element  in  the 
Hfe  of  Jesus.  The  only  way  to  get  at  the  facts  about  Jesus, 
according  to  Pfleiderer  and  Schmiedel,  is  to  drop  all  the 
supernatural  and  the  miraculous  and  to  construct  our  pic- 
ture of  Jesus  out  of  the  remnant.  Schmiedel  curtly  dis- 
misses the  deity  of  Christ  as  impossible,  since  he  was  man, 
and  such  a  union  in  one  person  is  impossible.^  Weinel  says, 
^'  From  the  Gospels  we  must  seek  the  human  being."  Bousset 
in  his  Jesus  holds  that  Jesus  never  transcends  the  purely 
human  and  never  presents  himself  as  the  object  of  faith. 
M.  Jones  files  this  complaint  against  the  liberal  Christology 
that  ''it  draws  a  portrait  of  Jesus  which  does  not  overstep 
the  limits  of  the  human,  and  yet  claims  for  this  conception 
of  the  ideal  man  the  very  extremes  of  religious  value,  and 
sets  him  up  as  an  object  of  religious  worship."  ^  That  is 
profoundly  true.  Jones  adds  this  pregnant  sentence:  "It 
has  frankly  broken  with  orthodoxy  and  its  miraculous 
Christ,  and  yet  retains  for  him  a  central  and  unique  position 
in  relation  to  humanity." 

The  first  and  foremost  miraculous  element  in  the  Gk)spel 

^  Christian  Origins  trans!.,  1906,  p.  217. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  83.  ^  IhU. 

^  "Gospels,"  EncyclopcBdia  Bihlica. 

^  The  New  Testament  in  the  Twentieth  Century,  19 14,  p.  21. 


49 

of  Mark  is  Jesus  himself.  The  very  headhne  of  the  Gospel 
is  *'The  Beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God"  (i:i).  Some  manuscripts  omit  ''the  Son  of  God,"  but 
Pfleiderer  is  quite  right  in  his  contention  that  this  Gospel 
means  to  prove  Jesus  to  be  the  Son  of  God  as  truly  as  the 
Fourth  Gospel  does.  Jesus  is  received  thus  and  makes  this 
claim.  *'0f  the  supernatural,  other-worldly  claims  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  there  can  be  no  question,  and  there  would  have 
been  none,  but  for  a  small  circle  of  pedants  who  were  anxious 
to  retain  the  name  and  privilege  of  Christian  while  rejecting 
every  element  that  gave  the  Faith  its  power."  ^  This  super- 
natural Christ  is  in  Mark's  Gospel.  The  Spirit  comes  upon 
him  as  a  dove  at  his  baptism  (i:io),  the  Father  addresses 
him  as  his  Son  (i:ii),  the  angels  minister  to  him  in  his 
temptation  (1:13),  he  is  transfigured  on  the  mountain  and 
talks  with  Moses  and  Elijah  and  the  Father  again  addresses 
him  as  his  Son  (9:2-7),  he  affirms  to  the  High  Priest  that  he 
is  the  Son  of  the  Blessed  (14:61/.),  he  rises  from  the  grave 
in  proof  of  his  claims  to  be  the  Son  of  God  (16:6),  and  in  the 
disputed  close  of  the  Gospel  (16:9-20)  there  is  additional 
proof  of  Christ's  resurrection  and  ascension. 

The  miracles  wrought  by  Jesus  come  in  this  atmosphere 
and  have  to  be  considered  as  natural  expressions  of  the 
divine  energy  possessed  by  Jesus.  It  is  idle  to  strip  away 
the  miracles  and  retain  the  teachings.  The  two  are  so  inter- 
woven in  Mark's  Gospel  that  nothing  of  real  value  would 
remain.  We  have  to  face  therefore  in  this  earhest  of  our 
Gospels  precisely  the  same  problem  that  confronts  us  in 
John's  Gospel,  the  credibiHty  of  the  narratives  with  the 
miraculous  element  in  them.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the 
age  was  credulous  and  that  men  were  predisposed  to  accept 
Jesus  as  divine.  The  Gospels  themselves  reveal  precisely 
the  opposite  situation.  Jesus  wrought  and  taught  in  the 
midst  of  a  keenly  critical  atmosphere  with  all  the  ecclesi- 
astical leaders  hostile  to  him,  and  with  his  own  disciples 
1  Figgis,  Civilisaiion  at  the  Cross-Roads,  p.  146. 


50 

utterly  unable  to  grasp  the  spiritual  aspect  of  his  mission, 
and  the  promise  of  his  own  resurrection.  They  were  so 
skeptical  on  this  point  that  it  required  repeated  manifesta- 
tions to  convince  them  of  the  reality  of  his  resurrection. 
This  is  the  great  miracle  of  the  Gospels,  then,  Jesus  himself. 
Once  credit  the  fact  of  his  deity,  the  rest  follows  naturally. 
And  there  is  no  other  way  to  take  Mark's  Gospel. 

3.  Evolution  and  Miracle. — It  comes  back  at  last  to  our 
idea  of  God.  J.  Wendland  ^  argues  that  without  a  behef  in 
miracles  we  cannot  conceive  of  a  real,  living  God.  We  may 
think  of  an  absentee  God,  or  of  a  pantheistic  universe,  but 
not  of  a  personal  God  who  reigns  in  his  world.  The  scientific 
objection  to  miracle  has  lost  much  of  its  force.  The  world  is 
now  seen  to  be,  not  static,  but  in  a  constant  state  of  change. 
Theistic  evolution  ''is  not  less  but  more  favorable  to  the  belief 
in  miracles.  It  is  not  a  finished  machine,  but  a  growing  or- 
ganism, that  the  world  appears."  ^  One  may  or  may  not 
accept  the  theory  of  theistic  evolution.  Atheistic  evolution, 
of  course,  denies  the  existence  of  God  and  tries  to  explain 
everything  in  terms  of  materialism.  But  outside  of  Haeckel's 
Riddle  of  the  Universe  few  modern  scientists  go  to  that  ex- 
treme. Matthew  Arnold's  dictum  that  miracles  do  not 
happen  fails  to  satisfy  scientists  like  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,^  who 
finds  that  life  transcends  while  combining  with  and  con- 
trolling physical  forces.  Even  Huxley  with  his  agnosticism 
refused  to  deny  the  possibility  of  miracles.^  "The  root  ques- 
tion or  outstanding  controversy  between  science  and  faith 
rests  upon  two  distinct  conceptions  of  the  universe."  ^  The 
one  is  that  of  a  material  universe  absolutely  sufficient  in  itself, 
and  completely  furnished  for  its  origination  and  career.    The 

1  Miracles  and  Christianity. 

2  Garvie,  "Miracles,"  Hastings'  One  Volume  Bible  Dictionary. 
^  Life  and  Matter,  p.  198. 

*  Science  and  Christian  Tradition. 

^  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  Hibbert  Journal,  October,  1902.  Dr.  B.  B.  Warfield 
(Counterfeit  Miracles,  19 18)  admits  that  miracles  do  not  happen  now  and 
claims  that  they  have  not  happened  since  the  apostolic  age. 


51 

other  is  that  of  a  physical  universe,  open  to  and  dominated  by 
a  spiritual  universe.  We  must  make  our  choice,  therefore, 
between  these  two  conceptions  before  we  come  to  the  study 
of  Mark's  Gospel.  No  one  to-day  talks  about  violation  of  the 
laws  of  nature  by  miracle.  We  ourselves  overcome  the  law  of 
gravity  by  climbing,  and  now  by  flying  in  the  air,  but  the 
law  of  gravity  operates  all  the  time.  We  overcome  it  by 
force  of  will.  Surely  God  has  his  own  personal  will  at  all 
times,  and  is  himself  superior  to  all  the  laws  that  he  has  laid 
down  for  his  universe. 

4.  The  Number  of  the  Miracles  in  Mark. — Without  further 
apology,  therefore,  we  can  come  to  Mark's  Gospel  and  note 
the  miracles  wrought  by  Jesus.  They  are  usually  given  as 
eighteen,  but  it  all  depends  on  what  we  consider  a  miracle. 
We  note  the  demoniac  in  the  S3Tiagogue  in  Capernaum 
(1:23-27),  Peter's  mother-in-law  (1:30),  the  leper  (1:40-45), 
the  paralytic  (2:1-12),  the  man  with  a  withered  hand  (3:1-6), 
stilHng  the  tempest  (4:35-41),  the  Gadarene  demoniac 
(5:1-20),  the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood  (5:25-34),  raising 
of  Jairus'  daughter  (5 : 2 1-24, 35-43),  feeding  the  five  thousand 
(6:31-44),  walking  on  the  sea  (4:45-52),  the  daughter  of 
the  Syro-Phcenician  woman  (7:24-30),  the  deaf  and  dumb 
man  (7:31-37),  feeding  the  four  thousand  (8:1-9),  the  blind 
man  at  Bethsaida — ^Julias  (8:22-26),  the  deaf  and  dumb 
demoniac  and  epileptic  (9:14-29),  bHnd  Bartimaeus  (10: 
46-52),  the  withering  of  the  fig  tree  (11:12-14,  20-25),  ^-nd 
the  cleansing  of  the  temple  (11:15-18).  There  are  nineteen 
in  this  fist,  which  counts  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  as  a 
miracle,  as  T.  H.  Wright  does  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of 
Christ  and  the  Gospels  (article  ^'Miracles").  Leaving  that 
out  we  have  eighteen. 

But  this  list  is  by  no  means  complete,  for  in  Mark  we  have 
a  number  of  general  descriptions  of  a  great  many  miracles 
wrought  by  Jesus.  There  is  absolutely  no  means  of  teUing 
how  many  miracles  were  performed  by  Jesus.  They  prob- 
ably ran  up  into  many  thousands.     "And  he  healed  many 


52  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

that  were  sick  with  divers  diseases,  and  cast  out  many  de- 
mons" (i  :34).  "And  he  went  into  their  synagogues  through- 
out all  Galilee,  preaching  and  casting  out  demons"  (1:39). 
*'Lest  they  should  throng  him:  for  he  had  healed  many; 
insomuch  that  as  many  as  had  plagues  pressed  upon  him 
that  they  might  touch  him"  (3:9/.)-  ''And  the  scribes  that 
came  down  from  Jerusalem  said,  He  hath  Beelzebub,  and, 
By  the  prince  of  the  demons  caste th  he  out  the  demons" 
(3:22).  ''And  he  could  do  there  no  mighty  work,  save  that 
he  laid  his  hands  upon  a  few  sick  folk  and  healed  them" 
(6 15) .  *' And  ran  about  that  whole  region  and  began  to  carry 
about  on  their  beds  those  that  were  sick,  where  they  heard 
he  was.  And  wheresoever  he  entered,  into  villages,  or  into 
cities,  or  into  the  country,  they  laid  the  sick  in  the  market- 
places, and  besought  him  that  they  might  touch  if  it  were  but 
the  border  of  his  garment:  and  as  many  as  touched  were  made 
whole"  (6:55/.).  One  had  only  to  let  his  imagination  work 
a  little  to  see  the  vast  scale  of  this  work  of  heahng  on  the  part 
of  Jesus.  One  may  note  in  passing  also  the  work  done  by 
the  apostles  on  this  tour  of  Galilee:  "And  they  cast  out  many 
demons  and  anointed  with  oil  many  that  were  sick  and  healed 
them"  (6:13).  If  one  will  take  out  of  Mark's  Gospel  all  the 
miracles  wrought  by  Jesus  and  every  mention  of  the  mirac- 
ulous or  the  supernatural,  he  will  have  only  a  mutilated 
fragment.  Wright  tries  it  for  the  first  three  chapters  of 
Mark  just  to  show  what  a  bare  skeleton  is  left.  "In  most 
of  the  reports  the  action  of  Jesus  is  so  interwoven  with  un- 
mistakably authentic  words  that  the  two  elements  cannot  be 
separated."  ^  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  in  Mark's,  as  in 
John's  Gospel  (20:30/.),  a  selection  has  been  made  of  represen- 
tative miracles  without  any  idea  of  exhaustiveness. 

5.  Kinds  of  Miracles. — The  common  division  of  Christ's 

miracles  is  into  miracles  on  nature,  miracles  on  man,  and 

miracles  on  the  spirit  world.    But  there  is  no  sharp  Une  of 

cleavage.    "  Nature  "  with  Christ  covers  all  realms.    He  is  at 

1  Bruce,  "Jesus,"  Encyclopedia  Biblica. 


THE   MIRACULOUS   ELEMENT   IN  MARK  S    GOSPEL      53 

home  everywhere.  Human  nature  is  a  part  of  nature.  The 
spirit  world  is  also  a  part  of  God's  world.  Jesus  is  as  much  at 
home  in  his  mastery  of  wind  and  wave  as  in  healing  a  blind 
man.  He  expels  the  demons  with  the  same  ease  with  which 
he  makes  the  loaves  and  fishes  multiply  for  the  five  thousand 
and  then  for  the  four  thousand.  He  walks  on  the  sea  and 
withers  the  fig  tree  at  a  word.  He  raises  the  dead  and  attacks 
with  uniform  success  all  sorts  of  diseases.  We  get  a  very 
httle  way  in  understanding  Christ's  power  by  any  analysis 
of  the  kind  of  miracles  wrought.  Some  were  miracles  of 
creative  power,  some  of  Providence.  Some  were  miracles 
of  personal  faith,  some  of  intercession,  some  of  compassion, 
as  those  on  the  sabbath  day  and  raising  the  dead. 

It  is  easier  for  modern  men  to  understand  some  of  Christ's 
cures  than  others.  The  cases  of  nervous  disorder  are  now 
better  understood  because  we  know  more  about  the  influence 
of  the  mind  on  the  body  than  we  once  did.  But  if  these  cures 
seem  to  us  more  credible  than  was  once  the  case,  we  are  not 
logically  justified  in  repudiating  the  rest,  as  Harnack  does, 
who  will  not  believe  that  *'a  stormy  sea  was  stilled  by  a 
word."  The  rather  we  should  be  constrained  to  beheve  what 
we  cannot  explain,  since  so  much  has  become  plainer.  The 
Duke  of  Argyll  ^  pertinently  suggests  that  God  has  laws  un- 
known to  us.  They  operate  regardless  of  our  ignorance  of 
them.  Instance  electricity,  the  atom,  radium,  and  other 
discoveries  that  are  revolutionary  to  us. 

6.  Miracle  and  Fact. — We  must  always  remember  that  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  did  not  seem  miraculous  or  unusual  to  him. 
The  most  real  thing  in  his  earthly  life  was  his  fellowship  with 
his  Father.  The  Fourth  Gospel  makes  this  perfectly  plain 
(cf.  John,  ch.  5),  but  it  comes  out  in  Mark's  Gospel  also 
(1:1,  35;  9:7;  13:32).  Jesus  is  here  seen  as  a  citizen  of  two 
worlds.  He  is  the  Son  of  man  and  the  Son  of  God.  He  ap- 
proaches human  sin  and  sickness  with  the  heart  of  the  Be- 
loved Physician  that  he  is,  but  with  the  skill  and  pov/er  of  the 
1  Reign  of  Law,  p.  16. 


54  STUDIES  IN  mark's  GOSPEL 

Father  whose  Son  he  is.  He  is  thus  able  to  make  an  unerring 
diagnosis  and  to  touch  the  springs  of  hfe  to  drive  away  the 
germs  of  disease.  We  are  fearfully  and  wonderfully  made, 
and  Jesus  releases  in  men  the  forces  of  life  that  win  the  vic- 
tory in  the  wonderful  fight  going  on  in  all  of  us  for  life  or 
death.  The  miracles  of  Jesus  are  consonant  with  his  loving 
heart  of  pity  and  tenderness.  *'If  it  be  a  revelation  of  grace, 
the  miracles  also  must  be  gracious."  ^ 

So  then  we  must  not  draw  a  line  between  miracle  and  fact. 
A  hundred  years  ago  the  aeroplane  would  have  seemed  a 
miracle.  A  railroad  train  in  Gaul  would  have  frightened 
Julius  Caesar  and  his  legions.  "A  miracle  is  on  one  side  of  it 
not  a  fact  of  this  world,  but  of  the  invisible  world."  ^  But  it 
becomes  a  part  of  this  world  when  it  has  taken  place.  A  fact 
is  a  fact  whether  we  comprehend  it  or  not.  Hume  thought 
that  he  had  disposed  of  miracles  by  saying  that  they  could 
not  be  proved.  But  men  do  the  most  astounding  things. 
An  engineer  proved  conclusively  that  a  steamship  could  never 
cross  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  because  it  could  not  carry  coal 
enough  to  get  across.  But  the  steamship  went  on  across  all 
the  same.  Nothing  is  impossible  with  God,  nothing  that  is 
worth  while,  that  is  good,  that  appeals  to  God's  heart.  He 
has  the  power  to  do  what  he  wills  to  do.  That  is  the  end  of 
the  whole  matter. 

7.  The  Key  to  Miracle. — Sanday  ^  considers  it  proved  *'  that 
miracles  were  really  performed  by  Christ,"  but  holds  that 
our  problem  to-day  is  ''the  difficulty  of  exactly  correlating 
and  harmonizing  the  ideas  of  the  twentieth  century  with  those 
of  the  first."  That  is  undoubtedly  true,  but  the  solution  may 
not  be  quite  what  Sanday  suggests.  *'We  may  lay  it  down 
as  most  probable  that  there  is  somewhere  in  the  nature  of 
things  a  possible  adjustment  of  the  facts  historically  verified 
with  a  reasonably  interpreted  philosophy  of  nature."    Pos- 

^  Bruce,  The  Miraculous  Elemmt  in  the  Gospels,  p.  290. 

2  Mozley,  Miracles,  p.  102. 

3  "Miracles,"  Standard  Bible  Dictionary.   ■ 


THE  MIRACULOUS  ELEMENT  IN  MARK's   GOSPEL      55 

sibly  so,  for  this  is  a  cautious  statement  according  to  San- 
day's  habit.  But  we  maintain  that  the  credibiHty  of  the 
miracles  of  Jesus  does  not  depend  upon  our  being  able  to 
square  them  with  the  current  philosophy  of  nature  which 
we  may  hold,  a  constantly  changing  theory.  But  Sanday 
is  wholly  correct  in  his  view  that  ^' the  key  to  miracles"  lies  in 
the  personaUty  of  God.  If  there  are  latent  possibilities  in 
man,  who  can  say  what  God  can  or  cannot  do?  If  Christ  is 
both  God  and  man,  we  cannot  properly  deny  to  him  the 
power  of  God. 

8.  A  Non-Miraculous  Gospel. — The  miracles  of  Jesus  will 
continue  to  be  attacked,  as  by  Thompson,^  but  there  are 
modern  defenders,  like  Illingworth  ^  and  Ballard,^  who  know 
how  to  interpret  modem  thought  in  harmony  with  the  law 
and  will  of  God.  It  is  true  that  to-day  more  emphasis  is  laid 
upon  the  spiritual  and  ethical  content  of  the  Gospels  than 
upon  the  miracles  and  the  supernatural  attestation  of  the 
message.^  But  it  is  not  true  that  we  can  give  up  the  miracu- 
lous element  in  Mark  or  any  of  the  Gospels  and  have  anything 
left  that  is  worth  while.  We  should  have  mere  scraps  of 
narrative  with  disjointed  sayings,  and  a  purely  human  Jesus 
who  was  one  of  the  most  mistaken  of  men;  a  teacher  full  of 
hallucinations  about  himself;  a  mu*acle-monger  like  Simon 
Magus,  not  the  Wonder-Worker  of  Mark's  Gospel;  a  dis- 
appointed and  misguided  leader  of  a  forlorn  hope,  not  the 
Saviour  of  the  world  who  gave  his  life  a  ransom  for  many 
(Mark  10:45);  a  teacher  out  of  touch  with  modern  life,  not 
the  star  of  hope  for  a  sin-stricken  race. 

9.  The  Renaissance  of  Wonder.^ — The  day  has  passed 
when  serious  scholars  make  scoff  at  wonder.  Modern 
science  has  taught  us  much  of  the  marvels  of  nature.    Some 

*  Miracles  in  the  New  Testament,  191 1. 

^Gospel  Miracles,  191 5. 

3  Miracles  of  Unbelief,  1904. 

^  G.  A.  Gordon,  Religion  and  Miracle,  1909. 

"  The  Convention  Teacher  (Nashville),  June,  19 18. 


56 

years  ago  President  E.  M.  Poteat  made  a  striking  address  at 
the  Southern  Baptist  Theological  Seminary  on  *'The  Re- 
naissance of  Wonder."  Three  Greek  words  are  used  in 
the  Gospels  to  describe  the  works  of  Jesus.  They  are 
wonders  (rcpara),  powers  (Swa/xets),  signs  (<jYjfieLa),  and  all 
are  used  together  in  Acts  2:22.  The  word  for  wonder 
occurs  in  Mark  only  in  13:22,  and  in  connection  with  the 
signs  wrought  by  false  prophets  who  seek  to  lead  astray  the 
very  elect.  But  the  idea  of  wonder  runs  all  through  the  Gospel 
of  Mark.  It  takes  all  of  these  words  to  convey  the  full  con- 
ception of  a  miracle  of  Jesus  as  a  cause  for  wonder,  as  a 
work  wrought  by  divine  power,  and  as  a  sign  of  the  truth 
of  Christ's  claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God. 

Mere  wonder  does  not  take  us  very  far  if  it  stops  there,  but 
we  do  not  make  much  headway  in  any  direction  without  it. 
The  child  is  constantly  learning,  and  greets  the  new  knowledge 
of  each  day  with  open-eyed  astonishment  and  delight.  The 
first  miracle  pictured  in  Mark  1 121-28  occurs  in  the  synagogue 
at  Capernaum.  There  the  people  "were  astonished  at  his 
teaching,"  at  the  force  and  authority  of  it,  "for  he  taught 
them  as  having  authority  and  not  as  the  scribes,"  and  at  the 
novelty  of  it.  "What  is  this?  A  new  teaching!"  But  the  big- 
gest sensation  on  that  day  was  that  the  unclean  spirit  went 
out  of  a  man  at  the  command  of  Jesus.  As  a  result,  "the 
report  of  him  went  out  straightway  everywhere  into  all  the 
region  of  GaUlee  round  about."  It  requires  very  httle  imagi- 
nation to  see  how  excitement  spread  into  every  direction  as 
the  outcome  of  this  day's  work.  Something  happened  that 
day  "at  church"  quite  out  of  the  ordinary. 

Amazement  in  the  synagogue  is  followed  by  the  healing 
of  Peter's  mother-in-law  (1:29-31).  The  two  miracles  are 
the  occasion  of  a  wonderful  sunset  scene  at  the  door  of  the 
dwelling  that  very  evening  (1:32-34).  Mark's  language  is 
picturesque,  probably  as  Peter  told  it  in  his  preaching.  "At 
even,  when  the  sun  did  set"  (possibly  a  glorious  sunset)  "all 
the  city  was  gathered  together  at  the  door"  (right  in  front 


THE   MIRACULOUS   ELEMENT   IN   MARK's   GOSPEL      57 

of  the  door).  Jesus  apparently  stood  in  the  doorway  and 
healed  the  passing  crowds  of  sick  folks  and  hushed  the  tur- 
bulent demoniacs.  It  was  the  hour  of  hope  for  all  the  stricken 
while  the  Great  Physician  was  on  hand.  It  is  easy  to  see  the 
stir  in  Capernaum  at  the  close  of  this  memorable  Sabbath 
day  there,  the  first  of  many  like  it.  There  Jesus  stood  with  no 
hospital,  no  medicine,  no  surgical  instruments,  but  with 
power  to  give  life. 

But  the  excitement  was  too  great,  and  the  strain  was 
severe  on  Jesus  (1:35).  Our  Lord  felt  the  need  of  his 
Father's  help,  and  spent  much  of  the  night  in  prayer. 
What  a  reproach  to  us  all  in  our  self-complacent  and  easy- 
going way  of  doing  Christian  work !  Peter  probably  told  this 
also,  for  Mark's  record  is  that  "Simon  and  they  that  were 
with  him  pursued"  Jesus  in  hot  haste  with  the  cry:  "All  are 
seeking  thee."  So  Jesus  "went  into  their  synagogues  through- 
out all  Galilee,  preaching  and  casting  out  demons"  (1:39). 
We  can  never  quite  comprehend  the  glory  of  this  first  dawn 
of  Christ's  power  in  Galilee.  He  healed  a  leper  (1:40-45) 
and  strictly  charged  him:  "Say  thou  nothing  to  any  man.'^ 
But,  man-like,  "he  went  out  and  began  to  pubHsh  it  much, 
and  to  spread  abroad  the  matter,  insomuch  that  Jesus  could 
no  more  openly  enter  a  city,  but  was  without  in  desert  places," 
seeking,  forsooth,  to  hide  from  the  excitable  populace.  But 
Mark  naively  adds:  "And  they  came  to  him  from  every 
quarter."    Those  were  great  days  on  earth. 

One  day  Jesus  was  back  in  Capernaum  and  "it  was  noised 
that  he  was  in  the  house"  (or  at  home).  That  news  was 
enough  for  the  crowd  which  was  soon  so  great  "that  there 
was  no  longer  room,  no,  not  even  about  the  door"  (2:2). 
Thus  Mark  introduces  us  to  his  description  of  the  healing 
of  the  paralytic  let  down  through  the  tile  roof  which  was  dug 
up  (2:1-12).  It  is  a  graphic  story.  Jesus  defied  the  Pharisees 
and  healed  the  man  to  prove  that  he  had  power  on  earth  to 
forgive  sins,  and  so  was  God.  The  man  "arose  and  straight- 
way took  up  the  bed,  and  went  forth  before  them  all,"  Mark 


S8 

says  with  characteristic  love  of  detail,  ''insomuch  that  they 
were  all  amazed,  and  glorified  God,  saying,  We  never  saw  it 
on  this  fashion."  They  could  not  get  used  to  the  wonder  of 
Christ  in  the  presence  of  sin  and  sickness  and  sorrow. 

The  anger  of  the  Pharisees  takes  a  practical  turn  when  the 
man  with  the  withered  hand  is  healed  right  before  their 
very  eyes  in  the  synagogue  and  on  the  Sabbath  day  (3:  1-6). 
''They  watched  him,"  for  the  Pharisees  had  now  come  to 
expect  that  Jesus  could  do  his  miracles  of  healing  when  he 
wished,  and  in  defiance  of  their  customs.  They  wished  a 
further  charge  against  him.  Jesus  was  deliberate  enough 
and  ''looked  round  about  on  them  with  anger."  The  holy 
anger  of  Christ  clashed  with  the  murderous  wrath  of  the 
Pharisees  who  "went  out  and  straightway  took  counsel 
against  him,  how  they  might  destroy  him." 

The  fame  of  Jesus  drew  "a  great  multitude  from  Galilee," 
and  "from  Judaea,  and  from  Jerusalem,  and  from  Idumaea, 
and  beyond  Jordan,  and  about  Tyre  and  Sidon"  who  came 
"hearing  what  great  things  he  did"  (3:7-12).  The  crowd 
pressed  upon  him  so  that  he  had  a  little  boat  to  wait  on  him 
by  the  sea  for  escape.  The  people  were  eager  to  "  touch  him  " 
as  they  passed  and  be  healed.  The  demoniacs  continued  to 
hail  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God. 

Two  explanations  of  Christ's  power  are  given  by  Mark; 
one  by  "his  friends"  that  "he  is  beside  himself"  (3:20/.),  and 
probably  including  his  mother  and  brothers  (3:31-35),  for 
the  moment  even  Mary  not  understanding  his  conduct; 
the  other  by  his  enemies,  the  Pharisees,  who  say  that  Jesus 
casts  out  demons  by  Beelzebub  (3:22-30).  But  both  classes 
admit  the  reality  of  his  cures.  The  extraordinary  man  is 
often  accused  of  being  peculiar. 

Quite  in  contrast  with  this  turbulent  atmosphere  is  the 
picture  of  Jesus  asleep  in  the  boat  with  his  head  on  the 
cushions,  while  the  disciples  are  frightened  to  death  by  the 
fierceness  of  the  storm.  They  have  the  Lord  of  Nature  with 
them  in  the  boat,  and  fear  that  all  are  sinking.    When  Christ 


THE  MIRACULOUS  ELEMENT  IN  MARK  S   GOSPEL      59 

shows  that  he  is  Master  of  wind  and  waves,  they  fear  ex- 
ceedingly. Even  the  apostles  are  not  used  to  the  many- 
sided  man  of  Galilee  whom  they  follow. 

The  scene  changes  quickly  in  Mark  like  a  kaleidoscopic 
panorama.  The  wild  man  at  Khersa  (5:1-20)  is  one  of  the 
weirdest  in  history.  Huxley  ridiculed  it  as  *'the  Gadarene 
Pig  Affair." 

There  are  difficulties  in  the  narrative  as  to  the  loss  of 
property  and  demons  in  hogs,  but  we  are  concerned  here 
only  with  the  tremendous  effect  of  the  cure  of  this  terrible 
man  of  the  tombs  and  of  the  mountains.  The  terror  of  the 
keepers  of  the  swine,  when  they  saw  the  herd  of  hogs  rush 
down  headlong  into  the  sea  and  drown,  was  communicated 
to  the  neighbors  who  ''began  to  beseech"  Jesus  *'to  depart 
from  their  borders."  Jesus  did  depart,  as  he  has  probably 
done  since,  from  many  another  region  to  its  ruin.  But  ''all 
men  marveled"  at  the  story  of  the  now  cahn  and  rational 
ex-demoniac. 

The  nervous  strain  on  Jesus  is  shown  by  the  case  of  the 
woman  with  an  issue  of  blood  (5:25-34).  ''And  straightway 
Jesus,  perceiving  in  himself  that  the  power  proceeding  from 
him  had  gone  forth,  turned  him  about  in  the  crowd,  and 
said,  "Who  touched  me?"  There  is  the  touch  of  nature 
that  makes  the  whole  world  kin.  What  teacher  or  preacher 
has  not  felt  power  go  out  of  him?  It  has  gone  out  if  the 
hearer  has  gotten  any  blessing.  This  "gone"  feeling  ex- 
plains "Blue  Mondays"  and  lack  of  "hberty,"  as  the  old 
preachers  used  to  say.  Yes,  and  one  can  do  no  more  till  he 
has  a  fresh  supply  of  divine  energy.  Even  Jesus  felt  the 
strain  of  the  work  of  healing  and  preaching.  But  he  was 
not  too  worn  to  soothe  and  to  bless  this  fearing  and  trem- 
bling woman. 

The  raising  of  Jairus'  young  daughter  (5:35-43)  made  a 
profound  impression.  "They  laughed  him  to  scorn"  when 
Jesus  went  on  up  to  the  room  to  restore  her.  Here  at  least 
was  a  point  where  the  power  of  Jesus  stopped.    So  the  crowd 


6o  STUDIES   IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

argued  he  might  keep  men  from  dying,  he  could  not  bring 
back  the  dead.  But  all  the  same  Jesus  drove  death  away. 
^'And  they  were  amazed  straightway  with  a  great  amaze- 
ment." 

And  yet  there  was  a  limit  to  the  power  of  Christ.  It  was 
unbelief,  and  Jesus  met  this  obstacle  at  Nazareth  (6:i-6). 
*'He  marveled  because  of  their  unbehef."  What  a  com- 
mentary on  the  community  in  Nazareth,  where  Jesus  had 
spent  his  youth.  *'And  he  could  there  do  no  mighty  work, 
save  that  he  laid  his  hands  upon  a  few  sick  folk,  and  healed 
them.  Perhaps  here  we  see  the  explanation  of  many  a  failure 
in  church  work  to-day. 

The  third  formal  campaign  through  Galilee  made  a  great 
impression,  and  even  Herod  Antipas  at  Tiberias  was  stirred 
intensely  by  it.  He  saw  in  Christ  the  ghost  of  John  the 
Baptist  whom  he  had  beheaded  (6:14-29).  This  guilty 
conscience  haunted  him  as  is  often  the  case  when  the  Spirit 
of  God  does  mighty  works  among  men.  Men's  hearts  are 
then  searched  to  the  depths. 

Twice  Christ  fed  the  crowds  east  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 
Once  it  was  near  Bethsaida- Julias  (6:30-44),  and  over  in 
Decapolis  (8:1-10).  Jesus  himself  alluded  afterward  to 
both  incidents  (8:14-21).  Each  time  a  tremendous  sensation 
was  the  result,  though  the  disciples  failed  to  understand  the 
lessons  taught  by  these  acted  parables  (8:19/.). 

Mark  tells  of  the  fear  of  the  disciples  when  they  saw  Jesus 
coming  to  them  walking  on  the  water  (6:45-52),  *'for  they 
all  saw  him,  and  were  troubled."  Even  after  Jesus  was  in 
the  boat,  *'they  were  sore  amazed  in  themselves."  On  the 
plain  of  Gennesaret  the  people  crowd  around  Jesus  to  touch 
the  hem  of  his  garment  (6:53-56). 

One  of  the  neatest  turns  in  Mark's  Gospel  is  the  story  of 
the  Greek  woman's  wit  in  repartee  and  strong  faith  that 
won  the  blessing  of  Christ  for  her  little  Gentile  daughter 
(7:24-30). 

The  picturesque  style  of  Mark  comes  out  well  in  the  case 


6i 

of  the  blind  man  who  was  healed  by  degrees,  and  at  first 
saw  men  as  trees  walking,  and  then,  after  a  second  touch 
from  Christ,  clearly.  Jesus  did  not  hesitate  to  touch  him 
a  second  time  (8:22-2^., 

The  failure  of  the  disciples  to  heal  the  epileptic  boy  almost 
destroyed  the  father's  faith  in  Jesus  (9:9-29).  The  disciples 
failed  from  lack  of  prayer  as  we  so  often  do  now.  We  do  not 
even  have  faith  equal  to  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  when  we 
go  up  against  ''this  mountain." 

One  can  see  and  hear  poor  blind  Bartimasus  on  the  Jericho 
road  as  he  cries  out  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth  who  is  passing  by 
(10:46-52).  In  grateful  joy  he  sprang  up  and  followed 
Jesus  with  the  rest  on  toward  Jerusalem. 

The  cursing  of  the  withered  fig  tree  (11:12-14,  20-26) 
puzzled  the  disciples,  for  the  tree  was  not  responsible  for  its 
having  leaves  before  figs.  But  this  also  is  an  acted  parable, 
an  object  lesson  for  them  and  for  us.  We  must  not  advertise 
what  we  do  not  have.  *'  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 
The  wonder  of  Jesus  is  not  explained.  He  is  himself  greater 
than  all  his  miracles,  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man. 


CHAPTER  VI 


"Peter  answereth  and  saith  unto  him.  Thou  art  the  Christ."  Mark 
8:29. 

I.  Mark  Responsible  for  Our  Picture  of  Christ. — It  is  emi- 
nently worth  our  while  to  look  at  the  picture  of  Christ  in 
Mark's  Gospel.  If  John's  Gospel  is  the  latest,  Mark's  is 
the  earliest.  It  is  generally  held  that  Mark  is  later  than 
Q  and  may  have  used  Q,  but  we  do  not  actually  have  Q 
save  as  a  matter  of  critical  analysis.  However,  we  do  possess 
Mark.  Not  all  the  critics  yet  agree  that  our  canonical  Mark 
was  written  by  John  Mark.  The  Ur-Marcus  theory  still 
has  a  following,  as,  for  instance,  Wendling,  who  postulates 
three  ''Marks."  Others,  like  Bacon,  favor  the  Redactor 
theory  involving  a  considerable  revision  of  the  original 
Mark  (by  John  Mark).  The  purpose  of  this  Chapter  is  not 
to  go  again  into  a  discussion  of  Mark's  Gospel  and  the  Synoptic 
Problem.  We  may  let  the  question  rest  for  our  purposes 
now  with  the  curt  conclusion  of  Pfleiderer:  ''Nothing  can 
be  urged  against  the  Church  tradition  that  this  Gospel  was 
written  by  John  Mark."  ^  We  are,  however,  concerned 
with  what  Pfleiderer  goes  on  to  add:  "Such  a  man  might 
well  have  been  the  author  of  the  Gospel  which  unites  the 
Jesus  of  the  Palestinian  tradition,  the  energetic  hero  of  a 
Jewish  reform  movement,  with  the  Christ  of  the  Pauline 
theology,  the  suffering  hero  of  a  mystical  world-salvation, 
and  thus  paved  the  way  which  was  finished  two  generations 

1  The  Construct  he  Quarterly  (New  York),  June,  1918. 

2  Christian  Origins,  transl.,  1906,  p.  222. 

62 


THE   CHRIST   OF   MARK's   GOSPEL  63 

later  in  the  Gospel  of  John."  So  then,  according  to  Pfleid- 
erer,  Mark  is  chiefly  responsible  for  giving  permanent  form 
to  the  theologizing  about  Jesus  which  made  a  divine  Christ 
out  of  him.  We  have  passed  through  the  ''Jesus  or  Christ" 
controversy.^  But  the  alternative  will  not  stand  sober 
criticism.  Jesus  is  the  Christ  of  Mark,  of  Matthew,  of  Luke, 
of  John,  of  Paul,  of  Peter,  of  James,  of  Jude,  of  Hebrews. 
We  went  through  the  ''Back  to  Christ"  cry  to  get  away 
from  the  Pauline  Christ  and  the  Johannine  Christ.  The 
Synoptic  Christ  was  what  was  wanted.  But,  lo,  he  is  the 
same  in  outline  as  the  Johannine  and  the  Pauline  Christ. 
It  is  now  clear  that  Paul  did  not  "invent"  Christ  out  of  the 
Jesus  of  history.  Criticism  has  discovered  Q,  the  main 
source  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  used 
on  a  par  with  Mark's  Gospel  by  them,  possibly  used  even 
by  Mark.  But  the  picture  of  Jesus  in  Q  is  the  same  in  fun- 
damental outhnes  as  that  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  Schweit- 
zer taunts  modern  German  criticism  with  pitching  over- 
board everything  save  "only  a  torn  and  tattered  Gospel  of 
Mark,"  ^  and  then  being  dissatisfied  with  the  picture  of 
Jesus  left  in  the  fragments.  The  "liberal  Jesus,"  he  argues, 
"has  given  place  to  the  Germanic  Jesus."  After  finding 
Mark  as  the  basis  of  Matthew  and  Luke  these  critics  have 
proceeded  to  modernize  Mark  and  have  brought  about  "  the 
downfall  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  as  an  historical  source"  to 
their  own  satisfaction.  Where  then  is  the  "historical  Jesus" 
which  was  promised  us?  "The  Germanic  spirit  is  making 
a  Jesus  after  its  own  likeness"  and  Schweitzer  concludes: 
"This  professedly  historical  Jesus  is  not  a  purely  historical 
figure,  but  one  which  has  been  artificially  transplanted  into 
history."  That  indictment  stands,  though  one  need  not 
follow  Schweitzer  in  his  "  eschatological "  vagaries. 

2.  The  Note  of  Reality. — Pfleiderer  does  not  mean  to  admit 
that  Mark's  picture  of  Christ  is  veracious.    The  distinction 

*  Hihhert  Journal  Supplement  for  1909. 

2  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus,  transl.,  1910,  p.  307. 


64  STUDIES  IN  MARK  S   GOSPEL 

between  Mark,  the  other  two  synoptists,  and  John  is  only 
relative.  But  he  holds  "that  the  Christ  of  the  first  three 
Gospels  appears  as  a  real  man  and  not  yet  as  a  God  become 
man."  ^  "A  comparison  with  the  other  Gospels  reveals  that 
Mark  represents  an  earUer  stage  of  apologetic  authorship 
and  hence  a  comparatively  clearer  and  more  naive  presenta- 
tion of  tradition"  (p.  217).  Clearly,  then,  there  is  ample 
justification  for  a  close  look  at  Mark's  picture  of  Jesus.  But 
Bacon  considers  Mark  "the  most  PauHne  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels"  and  holds  that  the  dominant  idea  of  the  whole 
Gospel  is  "to  produce  behef  in  his  person  as  Son  of  God."  ^ 
This  may  be  admitted  without  in  the  least  discrediting 
the  historical  worth  of  Mark's  Gospel.  There  is  small  use 
for  any  man  to  write  a  book  unless  he  has  a  serious  pur- 
pose in  view.  It  is  true,  as  Pfleiderer  charges,  that  all  the 
Gospels  have  an  apologetic  value.  The  same  thing  is  true 
of  every  scientific  paper  that  supports  a  thesis. 

But  while  this  is  true,  Mark's  Christ  has  the  note  of  reahty. 
It  is  true  that  Peter's  preaching  lies  behind  the  Second  Gospel 
though  the  book  is  not  a  mere  translation  of  Peter's  Aramaic 
discourses.  Mark  has  made  a  real  book,  but  without  de- 
stroying the  freshness  of  Peter's  picture  of  Jesus.  Peter 
made  Mark  see  Jesus  with  great  vividness  and  power  and 
he  has  preserved  the  starthng  boldness  of  that  image.  Mark 
himself  was  not  a  theologian  with  a  touch  of  philosophy  like 
John  or  a  scholarly  historian  like  Luke  or  a  man  of  affairs 
with  his  tabulated  lists  like  Matthew.  He  took  his  task  to 
be  rather  that  of  the  reporter  of  the  great  apostle,  Simon  Peter, 
the  glov/ing  preacher  whose  warmth  and  color  greatly  moved 
Mark's  heart  and  life  as  well  as  thousands  of  other  lives.  The 
reports  of  Peter's  discourses  in  Acts  2  and  10  make  it  easy 
to  beheve  that  Peter's  hearers  in  Rome  and  elsewhere  be- 
sought Mark  to  write  out  his  recollections  of  these  wonderful 
addresses.    If  we  wish  to  get  a  clear  idea  of  the  way  that  the 

1  Chrislian  Origins,  p.  10. 

2  Beginnings  of  Gospel  Slory,  1909,  p.  xxvii. 


THE  CHRIST  OF  MARK's   GOSPEL  65 

early  disciples  portrayed  Jesus  in  their  sermons  we  may  ob- 
tain that  conception  in  Mark's  Gospel.  It  is  the  preacher's 
picture  of  Christ,  the  preacher  who  knew  Jesus  by  blessed 
experience  and  who  was  trying  to  win  others  to  the  service 
of  Christ.  Paul  reminded  the  Galatians,  ''before  whose  eyes 
Jesus  Christ  was  openly  set  forth  crucified"  (Gal.  3:1),  of  his 
own  picturesque  preaching  of  Christ. 

3.  Mark's  Purpose  in  this  Gospel. — We  have  in  Mark's 
Gospel,  thus,  our  earliest  picture  of  Christ  in  any  adequate 
sense,  for  Q  is  only  a  torso.  It  is  of  supreme  importance  for 
us  all  to  look  at  Mark's  Christ  with  clear  eyes  and  open 
hearts  and  honest  minds.  It  is  held  by  some  that  the  open- 
ing words  of  this  Gospel  (1:1)  constitute  a  mere  headline  and 
were  not  a  part  of  the  original  Mark.  But  ''whether  the 
present  headline  of  the  Gospel  is  due  to  St.  Mark  or  to  an 
early  editor,  it  admirably  expresses  the  idea  of  the  book. 
It  is  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God^  ^  It  is  thus 
not  exactly  "The  Life  of  Christ  according  to  St.  Mark"  as 
Bennett  has  it  in  his  excellent  discussion  (1907).  Mark  does 
not  undertake  to  give  us  the  Life  of  Christ,  but  the  message 
of  Jesus  in  its  essential  features  and  enough  of  his  claims  and 
acts  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  in  reahty  "the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,"  though  not  all  the  manuscripts  have  "  the  Son  of  God." 
We  must  not  be  misled  into  thinking  that  Mark  has  given 
us  or  meant  to  give  us  a  collection  of  the  words  of  Jesus. 
What  he  has  done  for  us  is  to  present  Christ  in  action  both  as 
Worker  and  as  Teacher.  We  see  Jesus  as  the  man  of  power 
and  it  is  the  power  of  God  and  not  of  a  mere  man.  Mark  has 
little  theology  in  his  book  in  the  sense  of  theological  or  philo- 
sophical terms,  and  yet  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  con- 
cerning the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ  are  here.  He  does  not 
conceal  his  own  opinion  about  Jesus,  though  there  is  no 
abstract  discussion  as  one  finds  in  a  modern  treatise  like 
Fairbairn's  The  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology  (1893), 
Forsyth's  The  Person  and  Place  of  Jesus  Christ  (1909),  Mack- 
1  Swete,  Commentary,  p.  Ixxxiv. 


66 

intosh's  The  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ  (19 12),  or 
Moffatt's  Theology  of  the  Gospels  (191 2).  It  will  not  do  to 
depreciate  Mark's  method  as  wholly  lacking  in  merit  because 
he  is  more  objective  and  concrete.  The  peculiar  vitaHty  of 
this  Gospel  is  partly  due  to  this  very  fact.  Mark's  picture 
of  Christ  stirs  the  mind  to  intense  activity  and  is  creative 
of  the  truest  theology. 

4.  Limitations  in  Mark's  Gospel. — ^The  limitations  of 
Mark's  Gospel  confront  us  at  once.  There  is  nothing  about 
the  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus.  What  conclusion  shall  we 
draw  from  this  fact?  The  argument  from  silence  is  notori- 
ously precarious.  The  only  just  conclusion  is  that  Mark 
used  the  material  at  hand  that  suited  his  purpose.  He  omits 
also  the  first  year  of  the  public  ministry  after  the  Baptism 
and  Temptation,  if  we  accept,  as  I  do,  John's  Gospel  as  re- 
liable history.  We  may  suppose  that  Mark  followed  the 
general  plan  of  Peter's  discourses  with  chief  emphasis  on  the 
Gahlean  ministry  and  Passion  Week  which  Peter  employed 
in  Caesarea  (Acts  10:34-43).  It  is  quite  gratuitous  to  go  on 
and  say  that  ''the  narratives  in  Matthew  and  Luke  are  re- 
ligious legends  of  no  historical  value"  ^  because  Mark  is 
silent.  Pfleiderer's  judgment  is  its  own  standard  in  deciding 
between  ''history"  and  "legend"  for,  he  says,  "though  there 
is  no  certain  knowledge  possible,  yet  it  may  be  considered 
probable  that  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John."  A  man  who  can 
say  that  cannot  complain  if  his  opinion  about  the  Virgin 
Birth  is  discounted.  Mark  simply  has  nothing  to  say  on  that 
subject  and  cannot  be  properly  quoted  as  hostile  to  that  view 
of  Christ's  birth. 

5.  The  Messianic  Consciousness. — Mark  presents  Jesus  as 
"the  Baptist's  successor."  ^  He  is  the  "herald  of  the  King- 
dom, taking  up  the  work  of  John."  ^  This  is  true,  but  Mark 
does  not  make  John  the  chief  figure  and  Jesus  the  secondary 
follower.  The  attitude  of  John  toward  Jesus  is  distinctly 
that  of  the  Forerunner  whose  whole  mission  was  absorbed  in 

1  Pfleiderer,  Christian  Origins,  p.  83.  ^  Swete.  ^  Gould. 


THE   CHRIST   OF   MARK's   GOSPEL  67 

the  work  of  the  Messiah.  "There  cometh  after  me  he  that  is 
mightier  than  I,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy 
to  stoop  down  and  unloose"  (Mark  1:7).  John  stood  alone, 
but  he  pointed  to  the  really  great  One  whose  very  baptism 
will  surpass  that  of  John  (1:8).  It  will  not  do,  therefore,  to 
say  that  in  Mark  the  IMessiahship  of  Jesus  is  a  development 
and  not  claimed  at  the  start  as  in  John's  Gospel.  There  is 
more  truth  in  Maclean's  idea  ^  that  in  Jerusalem  the  issue  was 
joined  at  once  between  Christ  and  the  Pharisees  while  in 
Galilee  Jesus  held  the  matter  in  abeyance  as  long  as  possible. 
But  this  is  not  to  say  that  Jesus  himself  was  at  first  unaware 
of  the  real  nature  of  his  person  and  mission  or  that  the  dis- 
ciples did  not  at  once  take  him  as  Messiah  as  John's  Gospel 
represents  them  as  doing.  The  disciples  did  not  grasp  the 
spiritual  character  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  not  till  Pente- 
cost came  with  the  Spirit's  illumination,  for  even  after  the 
Resurrection  of  Jesus  they  still  clung  to  the  Pharisaic  con- 
ception of  a  political  kingdom  (Acts  1:6).  Jesus  did  test  the 
disciples  concerning  their  knowledge  of  his  person  toward  the 
close  of  the  summer  of  withdrawal  from  Galilee  (Mark  8:27^.) 
but  it  is  probable  that  he  wished  to  know  now  whether  they 
still  believed  in  him  as  the  Messiah  after  all  that  they  had 
seen  and  heard.  Even  then  he  charged  them  not  to  tell 
what  Peter  had  so  nobly  said.  Least  of  all  is  it  proper  to  say 
that  Mark's  Gospel  treats  Jesus  simply  as  a  man  who  was 
carried  away  by  the  enthusiasm  of  the  multitude  and  by  his 
own  excitement  to  make  abnormal  claims  for  himself  at  the 
close  of  his  career.  That  is  not  the  way  the  Second  Gospel 
portrays  Jesus.  Gould  does  say  in  his  discussion  of  "The 
Person  and  Principles  of  Jesus  in  Mark's  Gospel":  ^  "We  are 
coming  now  to  the  close  of  Jesus'  ministry,  and  his  method 
has  not  yet  led  him  to  any  declaration  of  himself  nor  of  his 
mission.  It  would  almost  seem  as  if  he  had  no  consciousness 
of  a  mission  of  any  definite  sort,  so  content  has  he  been  to 

*  Mark's  Gospel,  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels. 
2  Commentary,  p.  xxv. 


68  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

let  things  merely  happen,  great  as  has  been  his  use  of  these 
happenings."    I  do  not  so  read  Mark's  Gospel. 

Let  us  see.  In  the  "headline"  (i:i)  Jesus  is  termed  the 
'Xhrist,  the  Son  of  God."  John  the  Baptist  foretold  the 
coming  One  as  near  and  as  the  expected  Great  One,  though 
Mark  does  not  say  that  he  applied  to  him  the  word  ''Mes- 
siah" (1:2-8).  But  we  must  not  be  slaves  of  a  word.  The 
idea  of  the  Messiah  is  in  the  context.  At  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  (1:9-11)  by  the  Baptist  the  Spirit  descends  on  him 
as  a  dove  and  the  Father  addresses  Jesus  as  ''my  beloved 
Son,"  and  this  act  of  baptism  calls  forth  the  approval  of  the 
Father.  The  Baptist  hears  God's  voice  salute  Jesus  as  the 
Son  of  God.  This  language  must  mean  the  Messiah  and 
presents  the  highest  conception  of  that  of&ce.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  really  here  (Father,  Son,  Spirit).  It  will 
not  do  to  say  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  conscious  of  his  mission 
and  of  his  peculiar  relation  to  God.  Thus  at  the  very  be- 
ginning of  our  earliest  Gospel  all  the  essential  elements  in 
the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ  confront  us.  His  humanity 
is  here  and  his  deity  is  here.  The  Messianic  consciousness 
of  Jesus  is  inevitably  involved.  This  great  event  made  the 
Baptist  certain  that  he  had  made  no  mistake  in  his  identi- 
fication of  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  There  are  no  disciples  of 
Jesus  as  yet. 

Mark  does  not  give  the  story  of  the  Temptation  of  Jesus 
by  Satan  where  the  deity  of  Jesus  is  subtly  challenged  by 
the  devil  and  where  his  humanity  is  strongly  emphasized  by 
the  weakness  of  hunger.  But  the  fact  of  the  Temptation  is 
given  by  Mark  with  a  touch  of  loneliness  added  by  the 
mention  of  "the  wild  beasts"  as  his  companions  and  the 
comfort  of  the  angels  at  the  end  (1:12/.).  Certainly  in 
Matthew  and  Luke  Jesus  stands  pitted  against  the  prince 
of  this  world  who  at  once  perceives  that  he  is  deahng  with 
the  Son  of  God  and  Jesus  is  fully  conscious  of  his  own  per- 
sonality and  of  the  vast  issues  at  stake  in  the  conflict.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  Gospel  of  John  that  more  thoroughly  pic- 


THE  CHRIST  OF  MARK'S  GOSPEL  69 

tures  the  deity  of  Christ  than  the  Temptation  where  his 
humanity  is  so  powerfully  attacked  by  Satan. 

When  the  demons  hail  Jesus  as  "the  Holy  One  of  God" 
(1:24)  Jesus  makes  no  disclaimer,  but  commands  silence, 
for  such  testimony  will  not  help  his  cause.  The  restraint  of 
Jesus  in  Galilee  does  not,  therefore,  mean  doubt  on  his  own 
part  about  his  Messiahship  or  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the 
early  disciples,  but  only  that  for  prudential  reasons  Jesus 
did  not  make  such  formal  and  public  claims.  The  public  in 
Galilee  were  too  fanatical  to  permit  it  without  precipitating 
a  crisis.  The  intensity  of  the  popular  excitement  is  manifest 
in  the  early  GaHlean  ministry.  "They  were  all  amazed" 
(Mark  1:27),  "all  the  city  was  gathered  together  at  the 
door"  (1:33),  "all  are  seeking  thee"  (1:37),  "Jesus  could 
no  more  openly  enter  into  a  city,  but  was  without  in  desert 
places;  and  they  came  to  him  from  every  quarter"  (1:45), 
to  go  no  further.  It  is  evident  that  everywhere  people  are 
hailing  Jesus  as  the  Messiah  proclaimed  by  the  Baptist, 
though  Jesus  avoids  the  use  of  the  term. 

6.  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man. — The  Pharisees  from 
Jerusalem  were  quick  to  see  the  inevitable  implication  of  the 
claims  and  works  of  Jesus.  When  Jesus  said  to  the  paralytic 
let  down  through  the  tile  roof:  "Son,  thy  sins  are  forgiven 
thee"  (Mark  2:5),  they  were  instant  with  the  accusation  in 
their  hearts:  "He  blasphemeth:  who  can  forgive  sins  but 
one,  even  God?"  (2:7).  In  this  tense  atmosphere  Jesus 
proceeds  to  heal  the  man  to  prove  his  power  or  authority  to 
forgive  sins  and  so  his  equality  with  God.  "But  that  ye 
may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  authority  on  earth  to 
forgive  sins  (he  saith  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy),  I  say  unto 
thee.  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  into  thy  house"  (2:10/.). 
There  is  no  possible  misunderstanding  the  import  of  this 
language.  The  use  of  the  phrase  "the  Son  of  man"  instead 
of  "Messiah"  probably  kept  the  populace  from  clearly 
understanding  the  Messianic  claim  that  Jesus  made  and 
robbed  the  Pharisees  of  a  technical  charge  of  blasphemy. 


70 

But  some  of  them  probably  knew  that  the  phrase  already- 
had  a  Messianic  sense  in  their  apocalyptic  writings  and  all 
of  them  knew  that  Jesus  really  claimed  practical  equaUty 
with  God  and,  worst  of  all,  defied  them  and  proved  his 
power  by  healing  the  paralytic  to  the  amazement  of  the 
crowd  who  ''glorified  God,  saying,  We  never  saw  it  on  this 
fashion"  (2:12). 

In  the  first  two  chapters,  therefore,  we  meet  the  use  of 
"Son  of  God"  and  ''Son  of  man"  which  aptly  depict  the 
deity  and  the  humanity  of  Jesus.  Tremendous  efforts  have 
been  made  to  empty  them  of  any  real  meaning.  But  in 
Mark's  Gospel  "the  Son  of  God"  means  more  than  just  any 
man,  since  all  men  are  sons  of  God  in  one  sense.  "Son  of 
man"  can  be  a  translation  of  the  Aramaic  ^'barnasha,"  a 
man,  any  man,  but  that  idea  is  puerile  and  jejune  in  most 
of  the  passages  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  Christ  is  not  in  2:10 
showing  that  "any  man"  has  the  power  to  forgive  sins,  but 
that  He  has  that  authority.  We  have  in  Mark  no  definition 
of  the  phrase  "the  Son  of  Man,"  but  it  is  manifestly  Mes- 
sianic and  representative.  The  reality  of  Christ's  humanity 
is  clearly  stated  by  it,  but  a  great  deal  more.  He  is,  besides, 
the  representative  man  of  the  race  and  the  ideal  man.  By 
means  of  this  term,  of  which  Jesus  is  fond,  he  is  able  to  lay 
claim  to  the  Messiahship  without  using  the  word  "Messiah" 
which  would  give  instant  offense  to  the  rulers  and  which 
would  at  once  arouse  the  passion  of  the  people.  How  much 
the  twelve  apostles  understood  at  first  by  the  language  of 
Jesus  we  are  not  told.  But  we  must  remember  that  they 
also  heard  him  called  "the  Son  of  God"  and,  as  John's 
Gospel  shows,  had  special  teaching  from  Jesus  concerning 
his  Messiahship. 

Jesus  early  foresaw  and  foretold  his  death  according  to 
Mark's  Gospel,  for  he  spoke  of  the  fasting  after  the  death 
of  the  bridegroom  (2:20).  His  claim  to  lordship  of  the  Sab- 
bath (2:27)  probably  astonished  the  disciples  as  much  as  it 
angered   Christ's   enemies.     The   unclean  spirits  had   the 


71 

habit  of  making  the  demoniacs  fall  down  before  Jesus,  cry- 
ing: *'Thou  art  the  Son  of  God"  (3:11).  Some  impression 
was  probably  made  on  the  minds  of  some  by  this  undesirable 
testimony. 

7.  Adverse  Opinions. — Mark  does  not  hesitate  to  present 
the  adverse  opinions  about  Jesus.  ''His  friends"  (3:21) 
went  out  to  lay  hold  on  him:  for  they  said,  He  is  beside 
himself."  This  was  the  charitable  construction  placed  on 
Christ's  conduct  by  his  own  ''brothers"  (3:31)  when  they 
heard  the  bitter  accusation  of  the  Pharisees  from  Jerusalem 
that  Jesus  was  in  league  with  the  devil  (3:22).  Apparently 
for  the  moment  even  Mary,  the  Mother  of  Jesus,  felt  that 
the  strain  had  been  too  great  upon  Jesus.  She  came  with 
her  sons,  ''calling  him,"  to  take  him  home.  This  dark  scene 
is  characteristic  of  Mark's  method.  He  puts  in  the  Hght  and 
shadow  of  the  actual  life  of  Jesus,  not  because  he  is  in  doubt, 
but  simply  as  an  artist  true  to  the  life.  Over  against  this 
depreciation  of  Jesus  put  the  exceeding  fear  of  the  disciples 
in  the  boat:  "Who  then  is  this,  that  even  the  wind  and  the 
sea  obey  him?"  (4:41).  They  had  doubtless  long  before  this 
taken  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  but  they  had  no  well-defined 
Christology  apart  from  the  Pharisaic  environment.  They 
were  in  confusion  over  the  apparent  contradiction  between 
the  sleeping  and  drowning  Jesus  and  the  Master  of  wind 
and  wave.  Soon  the  disciples  see  the  wild  man  of  the  tombs 
run  and  fall  down  and  worship  Jesus  as  he  screams:  "What 
have  I  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  the  Most  High 
God?  "  (5 :7) .  Huxley's  ridicule  of  the  "  Gadarene  Pig  Affair  " 
in  his  debate  with  Gladstone  has  not  disposed  of  the  weird 
power  of  this  scene.  Peter  seems  to  have  been  greatly 
moved  by  it,  for  Mark's  narrative  is  wonderfully  vivid  and 
dramatic. 

The  contrasts  in  Christ's  person  in  Mark's  Gospel  appear 
with  great  clearness  in  the  sensitiveness  of  Christ  to  the  loss 
of  energy  as  power  went  out  from  him  at  the  touch  of  his 
garment  by  the  sick  woman  (5:30/.),  and  in  the  tender  mas- 


72  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

tery  over  death  in  the  house  of  Jairus  where  in  the  presence 
of  a  small  group  Jesus  restores  the  child  to  life.  Mark  has 
kept  the  very  Aramaic  words  that  Jesus  used  to  the  little  girl, 
Talitha  cumi  (5:41).  Peter  never  forgot  them  as  for  the  first 
time  he  saw  Jesus  conqueror  of  death. 

The  picture  of  Jesus  in  the  synagogue  in  Nazareth  (6:1-6) 
reveals  the  limitations  in  the  work  of  the  Master.  His  old 
friends  and  neighbors  look  upon  Jesus  as  a  wonder  since  he 
sprang  from  the  midst  of  them.  He  was  to  them  still  *'the 
carpenter"  and  not  the  Messiah.  They  felt  that  there  must 
be  some  mistake  about  his  gifts  and  graces  since  they  had 
discovered  none  of  them  while  he  was  with  them.  Many 
another  man  has  been  a  stumbling-block  to  his  neighbors, 
for  the  prophet  is  not  without  honor  save  in  his  own  coun- 
try. The  lack  of  faith  limited  the  power  of  Jesus  to  work 
miracles.  People  differed  in  their  interpretation  of  Jesus  then 
as  now;  but  all  had  to  form  some  opinion  about  him.  The 
third  Gahlean  campaign  attracted  the  attention  of  Herod 
Antipas,  whose  guilty  fears  made  him  think  that  Jesus  was 
John  the  Baptist  come  to  life  again.  Others  thought  that 
Jesus  was  Elijah  or  another  of  the  prophets.  Some  felt  that 
he  was  indeed  the  Messiah,  as  the  Baptist  had  said.  Mark 
shows  his  fidelity  as  an  historian  in  letting  us  see  that  Jesus 
did  not  convince  all  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  the  Son  of 
man.  He  seemed  to  the  most  only  a  wonderful  man.  There 
was  no  doubt  of  his  humanity.  His  deity  was  evident  enough 
for  those  who  had  eyes  to  see  and  ears  to  hear,  but  his  deity 
was  to  be  held  in  harmony  with  his  humanity  however  little 
we  may  be  able  to  explain  the  union.  Mark  does  not  under- 
take to  explain;  he  states  the  facts  as  he  got  hold  of  them  and 
lets  the  facts  speak  for  themselves. 

8.  The  Disciples  Puzzled. — The  disciples  themselves  were 
repeatedly  puzzled  by  the  conduct  of  Jesus.  Mark  shows  this 
with  sheer  simplicity  and  naivete.  Jesus  was  weary  with  the 
apostles  and  sought  rest,  but  rallied  and  taught  the  eager 
crowds.    He  revealed  himself  as  Lord  of  nature  as  he  multi- 


73 

plied  the  loaves  and  the  fishes  for  the  multitude  (6:30-44), 
and  then  walked  upon  the  water  to  the  frightened  disciples 
(6:45-52).  Even  more  ^'they  were  sore  amazed  in  them- 
selves" as  they  tried  to  understand  Jesus  and  his  works. 
It  was  not  a  simple  matter  to  comprehend  Jesus  Christ  though 
these  men  saw  him  day  by  day.  Their  eyes  "were  holden" 
we  read,  holden  by  their  preconceived  ideas  about  the  Mes- 
siah and  by  their  own  theological  interpretations  of  Jesus. 

The  patience  of  Jesus  was  sorely  tried  by  the  slow  progress 
of  the  disciples  in  grasping  the  real  significance  of  his  teaching 
about  himself.  They  stumbled  in  simple  matters  like  the 
use  of  leaven  for  teaching  (8:15),  but  they  did  hold  on  to  the 
great  truth  that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah  (8:27-30), 
however  imperfect  their  views  of  the  Messiah  were.  This,  at 
least,  was  something  to  be  grateful  for,  and  Jesus  charged 
the  apostles  not  to  tell  others  as  yet  what  they  knew.  The 
masses  were  fickle  and  volatile  and  would  only  take  Jesus 
as  a  pohtical  Messiah  in  accord  with  Pharisaic  theology 
as  had  already  been  made  perfectly  plain.  Mark  does  not 
enlarge  upon  Peter's  great  confession  as  Matthew  does,  but 
shows  that  Peter  was  the  spokesman  on  this  important  oc- 
casion. Perhaps  Peter  had  not  discoursed  upon  the  words  of 
Jesus  to  him  at  this  eventful  juncture.  But  Peter,  for  Mark 
has  it  (8:31-33),  did  tell  of  Christ's  calling  him  "Satan" 
for  his  presumptuous  advice.  The  mystery  of  Jesus  appeared 
to  grow  as  he  discussed  his  own  death  after  the  staunch 
avowal  of  faith  in  his  Messiahship  and  divine  sonship.  In 
his  rebuke  of  Peter  Jesus  proceeded  to  set  forth  the  true 
philosophy  of  life  and  death.  This  was  applicable  to  the  Son 
of  man  most  of  all  as  he  faced  his  own  Cross,  and  yet  this 
"Son  of  man"  was  to  come  "in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with 
the  holy  angels  "  (8 :38).  He  will  come  to  judge  those  who  are 
ashamed  of  him  here  and  to  bless  those  who  confess  him.  This 
was  no  ordinary  "Son  of  man"  (barnasha)  who  was  himself 
the  test  of  every  man's  life  and  destiny,  Saviour  and  Judge  of 
all.    It  is  "his  Father's"  glory,  so  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God, 


74  STUDIES  IN  MARKS   GOSPEL 

and  yet  he  will  judge  mankind  as  "the  Son  of  man"  whose 
ideal  he  is.  Mark  is  fully  conscious  that  he  is  not  presenting 
the  portraiture  of  a  mere  Jewish  Prophet  or  Galilean  Teacher. 
He  is  the  greatest  of  all  teachers,  the  supreme  prophet  of  the 
ages,  the  model  for  human  life,  the  brother  of  the  race.  But 
he  was  far  more  than  all  this.  Mark  makes  it  evident  that 
this  *'more"  is  what  makes  all  the  rest  possible  and  offers 
hope  to  men. 

9.  Chrisfs  Conception  of  His  Death. — The  scene  on  the 
Mount  of  Transfiguration  (9:2-13)  reveals  Jesus  in  his  glory 
as  he  talks  with  Moses  and  Elijah,  representatives  of  law 
and  prophecy,  not  on  a  par  with  them,  but  as  their  superior. 
He  is  addressed  by  the  Father's  voice  as  "my  beloved  Son" 
while  he  alludes  to  himself  in  his  talk  with  the  three  disciples 
as  "the  Son  of  man."  Mark  represents  the  death  of  Christ 
as  the  theme  of  the  high  converse  with  Moses  and  Elijah. 
Jesus  had  failed  to  make  the  disciples  comprehend  the  import 
of  his  atoning  death  as  they  continued  to  fail  in  this  supreme 
matter.  To  the  disciples  it  was  incongruous  and  incom- 
prehensible that  the  Messiah  should  die.  They  had  as  yet  no 
room  for  the  suffering  Messiah  in  their  theology.  They  could 
see  how  he  was  prophet  and  king,  but  not  how  he  was  priest. 
And  yet  the  priestly  aspect  of  Christ's  work  is  the  chief  thing 
as  he  conceived  it.  His  sacrificial  death  was  the  real  purpose 
of  his  earthly  life.  He  came  to  give  life  to  men,  but  this  gift 
of  fife  was  made  possible  by  his  own  death.  With  this  spirit 
Christ  approached  his  own  death.  He  had  to  drink  this  cup 
and  to  receive  the  baptism  of  death  (10:38).  "For  the  Son 
of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and 
to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many"  (10:45).  Jesus  did  not 
often  allude  to  this  deepest  aspect  of  his  work,  for  the  dis- 
ciples could  not  become  reconciled  to  the  fact  of  his  death. 
They  were  poorly  prepared  as  yet  for  the  interpretation  of  that 
death.  But  it  is  significant  that  in  Mark's  Gospel  the  atone- 
ment finds  a  real  place.  Evidently  it  had  this  place  in  Peter's 
preaching  {cf.  Acts  2:38;  10:43)  as  in  his  Epistles  (i  Peter 


THE   CHRIST  OF  MARK'S   GOSPEL  75 

1:18/.).  As  Jesus  went  on  to  Jerusalem  to  meet  his  hour,  he 
saw  that  his  death  was  to  be  a  "ransom  for  many."  The 
papyri  have  this  word  (lutron)  as  the  price  paid  for  freeing 
a  slave.  So  Jesus  looked  upon  his  death.  When  he  instituted 
the  supper  after  the  last  passover  meal,  he  said:  "This  is  my 
blood  of  the  covenant,  which  is  poured  out  for  many  "(14:24). 
This  view  is  no  afterthought  with  Jesus,  no  last  resort  of  a 
disappointed  man  who  sought  refuge  in  death  after  defeat  in 
life.  It  is  not  the  later  theologizing  of  Peter  or  of  Mark. 
It  is  Peter's  recollection  of  the  words  of  Jesus  which  Peter 
frankly  confessed  that  he  did  not  at  the  time  understand. 
Nothing  is  more  true  to  life  in  Mark's  Gospel  than  his  re- 
tention of  the  confession  and  dullness  of  the  apostles  con- 
cerning the  teaching  of  Jesus  about  his  personal  work.  The 
development  in  this  Gospel,  as  in  John's  Gospel,  is  chiefly 
in  the  revelation  of  Jesus  to  these  awakening  men  in  the  face 
of  the  growing  hostility  of  his  enemies.  The  atmospheric  en- 
vironment was  all  against  the  true  perception  of  the  nature 
of  the  Messiah  whom  they  loved  and  adored.  The  mj^stery 
deepened  as  they  entered  further  with  Christ  into  the  shadow 
of  the  Cross.  Their  hearts  beat  back  and  forth  as  they  shared 
the  shifting  scenes  of  the  closing  days.  The  Triumphal  Entry 
was  a  public  proclamation  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  The 
Jerusalem  authorities  so  interpreted  it.  And  Jesus  meant 
them  to  so  understand  it.  The  people  hailed  Jesus  with 
utter  joy  as  "he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord"  (11:9). 
And  yet  Jesus  knew  that  he  was  not  the  political  Messiah 
that  they  took  him  to  be,  knew  also  that  to  let  it  pass  that 
way  would  give  his  enemies  the  charge  against  him  that  they 
wished.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  Sanhedrin  he  was  a 
blasphemer  for  claiming  to  be  the  Messiah.  From  the  stand- 
point of  Rome  he  could  be  charged  with  high  treason  in  setting 
himseK  up  as  a  rival  king  to  Caesar.  Jesus  foresaw  all  this 
and  yet  made  his  defiance  on  purpose.  Thus  he  would  force 
the  hand  of  his  enemies  and  bring  matters  to  a  crisis  and  reveal 
their  guilt,  and  so  he  would  meet  his  hour  as  the  Lamb  of  God 


76  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

offered  on  the  Cross  for  human  sin.  The  sinlessness  of  Christ 
is  taught  in  Mark  and  the  voluntariness  of  his  death.  The 
dignity  of  the  great  Tragedy  is  here.  Jesus  is  Master  of  the 
Temple  and  orders  the  money-changers  out  (11:15).  In  the 
parable  of  the  husbandman  and  the  vineyard  Jesus  shows  that 
he  is  the  King's  Son  to  the  dismay  of  his  enemies.  He  apphes 
to  himself  the  words  of  the  Psalmist  (118:22/.)  that  the  stone 
which  the  builders  rejected  is  become  the  head  of  the  corner 
(Mark  12:10).  He  shows  that  David's  son  is  also  David's 
Lord  with  clear  implication  concerning  his  own  humanity  and 
deity  as  the  Messiah  (12 :35-37),  to  the  anger  of  the  rulers  and 
the  joy  of  the  common  people. 

10.  Victor  on  the  Cross. — In  the  eschatological  discourse 
(ch.  13),  the  so-called  *' Little  Apocalypse,"  in  the  very  verse 
(32)  wherein  he  admits  his  ignorance  of  the  time  of  his  second 
coming  and  of  the  world's  judgment,  he  affirms  his  peculiar 
sonship  (''the  Son,"  *'the  Father")  as  in  John's  Gospel. 
Almost  in  the  hour  of  his  death  he  asserts  his  lordship  and 
victory  over  all  his  foes  in  the  end.  "And  then  shall  they 
see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  clouds  with  great  power  and 
glory"  (13:26).  He  never  seems  more  completely  master 
of  his  own  destiny  than  when  he  is  the  victim  of  human  hate. 
He  is  Lord  of  the  world  that  crucifies  him.  He  is  adjudged 
guilty  of  blasphemy  and  of  treason,  though  free  from  all  sin, 
and  will  some  day  come  as  Judge  of  his  judges  and  of  all  men. 
Jesus  is  conscious  that  he  is  laying  down  his  life  for  the  world's 
sin,  but  he  by  no  means  holds  those  guiltless  who  compass 
his  death.  ''For  the  Son  of  man  goeth,  even  as  it  is  written 
of  him;  but  woe  unto  that  man  through  whom  the  Son  of 
man  is  betrayed !  good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  not  been 
born"  (14:21).  "The  hour  is  come;  behold,  the  Son  of  man 
is  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  sinners"  (14:41). 

In  the  hout  of  weakness  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane, 
when  the  soul  of  Jesus  shrank  from  the  cup  of  woe,  he  yet 
was  fully  conscious  that  he  was  God's  Son  and  began  his 
heart-rending  plea  and  absolute  submission  to  the  Father's 


THE   CHRIST   OF   MARK  S   GOSPEL  77 

will  with  the  tender  words  ''Abba,  Father"  (14:36),  blending 
the  Aramaic  of  his  childhood  and  the  Greek,  as  Paul  in  Ro- 
mans 8:15;  Gal.  4:6. 

In  the  trial  before  Caiaphas  and  the  Sanhedrin  Jesus  on 
oath  confesses  that  he  is  ''the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed" 
(14:61),  when  he  knew  that  this  confession  meant  his  death. 
But  Jesus  would  not  renounce  his  true  personahty  to  save 
his  mortal  life.  In  this  very  moment  Jesus  claims  also  to  be 
*'the  Son  of  man"  whom  Caiaphas  and  his  other  judges  will 
one  day  see  "sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  Power,"  as  King 
by  the  side  of  the  Father  on  the  Throne,  "  and  coming  with 
the  clouds  of  heaven"  (14:62).  This  defiance  of  Caiaphas 
was  ample  proof  to  him  of  blasphemy.  But  it  shows  beyond 
controversy  that  Mark  gives  us  the  high  conception  of  the 
Person  of  Christ. 

The  claims  of  Jesus  were  flung  in  his  teeth  as  he  hung  on 
the  Cross.  His  enemies  defied  *'the  Christ,  the  King  of 
Israel"  to  come  down  from  the  Cross  (15:32).  In  mockery 
they  unconsciously  stated  the  great  truth  about  his  whole 
work:  "He  saved  others;  himself  he  cannot  save"  (15:31). 

In  the  cry  of  agony,  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me?  "  we  seem  to  see  the  surprise  of  Jesus  that  his 
Father  should  allow  him  to  walk  this  path  alone  even  to  pay 
the  debt  of  the  sin  of  the  race  and  to  make  redemption  pos- 
sible. But  his  very  death  impressed  a  Roman  centurion  that 
he  was  surely  God's  Son  (15:39).  The  death  of  Jesus  was  no 
swoon,  but  actual  death,  and  the  disciples  were  all  in  despair 
in  this  hour  of  gloom. 

The  closing  verses  of  our  Mark  (16:9-20)  are  not  found  in 
the  oldest  documents.  We  cannot,  therefore,  appeal  to  them 
with  confidence  in  proof  of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus.  But 
in  Mark  16:1-8  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection  is  made  plain. 
The  women  find  the  tomb  empty  but  a  young  man  in  a  white 
robe  proclaims  that  Jesus  is  risen  from  the  dead  and  has  sent 
a  special  message  to  "his  disciples  and  Peter"  (16:7).  The 
Gospel  closes  with  Peter  reinstated  in  Christ's  confidence  and 


78  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

with  Jesus  as  the  Risen  Lord  who  will  carry  on  and  carry  out 
his  great  programme  for  the  world's  redemption. 

It  is  true  that  in  Mark's  Gospel  we  possess  a  mere  sketch 
of  the  life  and  work,  person  and  principles  of  Jesus.  And  yet 
it  is  also  true  that  in  this  sketch  we  have  the  main  features 
of  the  Christ  of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John.  *'  These  and  sim- 
ilar sayings  contain  an  almost  complete  outhne  of  Christian 
soteriology  and  eschatology,  and  assert  the  principles  of  the 
new  life  which  the  Lord  taught  and  exemplified  and  which 
His  Spirit  was  to  produce  in  the  life  of  the  future  Church."  ^ 

The  marvel  of  it  all  is  the  fact  that  it  is  done  in  such  short 
compass,  with  such  clarity,  with  such  vividness  (almost 
vivacity),  and  with  such  power.  The  stamp  of  reality  is  in 
this  story.  To  be  sure,  the  supernatural  is  here  and  Jesus 
is  offered  to  us  as  a  supernatural  Person  without  apology. 
But  the  day  is  gone  when  the  Gospels  can  be  refused  a  hearing 
because  of  the  presence  of  the  supernatural  in  them.  If  God 
exists,  it  is  unhistorical  and  unscientific  to  ignore  him.  The 
Christ  of  Mark  is  the  Christ  of  the  believer  in  all  the  ages. 
He  asks  that  his  power  over  the  life  be  put  to  the  test  of 
experience  before  one  decides  that  he  is  not  the  Son  of  God. 

There  is  pathos  in  the  fact  that  the  friends  of  Jesus  did  not 
see  at  first  the  true  import  of  his  claims.  His  enemies  saw 
the  peril  to  their  theology  and  power  in  the  revolutionary 
reforms  with  his  Messianic  assumptions.  Mark  has  presented 
the  graphic  story  with  dramatic  power,  but  there  is  no  mis- 
taking his  meaning.  He  proves  the  deity  of  Jesus  in  his  own 
way  as  conclusively  as  the  Gospel  of  John  does.  Rev.  W.  R. 
Whateley  ^  discusses  *'  Christ  as  the  Object  of  Faith  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels."  He  says:  *'The  synoptic  evidence,  in 
fact,  is  really  more  cogent  than  that  derived  from  the  Fourth 
Gospel." 

^  Swete,  Comtnentary,  p.  Ixxxix. 

2  The  Expositor  (London),  December,  1917, 


CHAPTER  VII 

JESUS   IN   mark's   gospel   THE   EXEMPLAR   FOR   PREACHERS  ^ 

"Come  ye  after  me,  and  I  will  make  you  to  become  fishers  of  men." 
Mark  1:17. 

Modem  preachers  are  greatly  interested  in  the  first  por- 
trayal of  the  greatest  preacher  of  all  time,  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
He  is  the  model  for  all  preachers.  He  is,  to  be  sure,  much 
more  than  this.  He  is  Son  of  God,  Son  of  Man,  Lord  and 
Saviour,  and  all  of  this  he  is  in  Mark's  Gospel.  But  he  was  a 
preacher  and  his  message  and  work  as  a  preacher  are  pre- 
sented with  great  clearness  and  power  in  this  gospel  of  action. 
Mark  has  no  formal  discussion  of  this  aspect  of  Christ's 
work,  but  we  see  him  in  action  as  a  preacher.  We  see  the 
whole  task  of  the  modern  preacher  reflected  in  this  picture 
of  Christ  drawn  by  Mark.  It  is  not  the  homiletics  of  Jesus 
that  we  are  primarily  concerned  with  in  this  Chapter,  though 
that  is  interesting  and  we  catch  glimpses  of  it  now  and  then. 
Rev.  A.  R.  Bond  has  a  good  book  on  The  Master  Preacher 
in  which  he  analyzes  the  homiletical  methods  of  Jesus, 
and  Dr.  James  Stalker  has  some  exceedingly  helpful  words 
in  his  Imago  Christi  and  The  Preacher  and  His  Models.  Jesus 
is  so  many-sided  in  his  human  nature  that  it  is  good  to  look 
at  him  sometimes  from  this  one  angle  of  vision.  Let  us  see, 
then,  how  Mark  describes  Jesus  the  Preacher. 

I.  Pictured  by  a  Preacher. — Mark's  portraiture  of  Christ 
comes  mainly  from  the  reminiscences  of  Simon  Peter  as 
nearly  all  modern  scholars  agree.  The  testimony  of  Papias 
and  of  various  other  early  writers  is  explicit  on  this  point,  as 

1  The  Expositor  (Cleveland),  March,  19 18. 
79 


8o  STUDIES  IN  mark's  GOSPEL 

we  have  seen.  There  are  many  proofs  of  the  work  of  an  eye- 
witness in  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  Peter  was  most  of  all  a 
preacher.  He  lacked  the  intellectual  strength  and  grasp  of 
Paul,  but  he  was  a  man  of  quick  insight,  a  practical  turn,  a 
warm  heart,  and  sympathy.  Mark  was  Peter's  disciple  and 
interpreter  and  heard  Peter  preach  Jesus  with  all  his  fervor 
and  freshness.  The  fidelity  of  Mark  is  shown  by  the  wonder- 
ful skill  with  which  he  has  preserved  the  many  nuances  in 
Peter's  glowing  oratory.  The  Christ  of  Mark  is  Christ  as 
Peter  knows  him  by  blessed  fellowship  and  under  the  tutelage 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Peter  did  not  hide  his  own  weaknesses 
and  shortcomings  in  his  preaching  and  Mark  has  kept  them 
in  his  story.    They  give  life  and  color  to  the  narrative. 

2.  Mightier  than  the  Baptist. — The  very  first  thing  in  Mark's 
Gospel  is  his  bold  sketch  of  John  the  Baptist  *'  who  baptized 
in  the  wilderness  and  preached  the  baptism  of  repentance 
unto  remission  of  sins"  (1:4).  This  picturesque  preacher  of 
righteousness  summoned  the  Jewish  nation  to  repentance 
and  treated  them  as  Gentiles  by  demanding  that  they  sub- 
mit to  baptism,  confessing  their  sins.  It  was  sensational 
enough  to  draw  all  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea  to  the  wilderness 
by  the  Jordan.  He  preached  as  a  herald  (iKypva-aev)  and 
kept  it  up  (imperfect  tense)  with  the  startling  announce- 
ment: "There  cometh  after  me  he  that  is  mightier  than  1, 
the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  stoop  down  and 
unloose"  (1:7).  John  said  this  at  the  very  acme  of  his  pop- 
ularity, when  all  men  held  him  to  be  a  prophet  (11:32)  and 
some  wondered  if  he  were  not  himself  the  Messiah.  John 
was  a  mighty  preacher  as  the  ages  testify.  The  few  pages 
in  the  Gospels  that  give  John's  message  justify  the  praise 
of  Jesus  and  the  enthusiasm  of  the  multitudes.  John  is  one 
of  the  outstanding  preachers  of  all  history.  But  he  (see  chap- 
ters II  and  X  of  my  John  the  Loyal,  191 1),  felt  that  his  chief 
glory  was  to  be  the  forerunner  of  the  Great  Preacher.  John's 
word  is  "stronger"  {laxvporepo^) .  It  was  not  an  anaemic 
Messiah  that  he  foresaw,  but  a  man  of  transcendent  energy 


JESUS  THE  EXEMPLAR  FOR  PREACHERS  8 1 

and  power,  who  ''shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit"  (i:8). 
Did  Christ  fulfill  John's  forecast?  The  first  time  that  he 
saw  him  he  beheld  the  Holy  Spirit  come  upon  him  Hke  a 
dove  and  heard  the  voice  from  heaven  greet  him  as  God's 
Beloved  Son  (i:io/.).  That  was  an  introduction  in  keeping 
with  John's  vision. 

3.  Tempted  like  other  Preachers. — Preachers  know  that  they 
are  not  exempt  from  temptation.  Some  may  imagine  that 
they  are  immune  from  the  darts  of  the  devil,  but  they  are  soon 
undeceived.  Judas  at  last  fell  a  victim  to  the  wiles  of  the 
devil  and  Peter  was  in  dire  peril  for  ^'  Satan  asked  to  have  you, 
that  he  might  sift  you  as  wheat:  but  I  made  supplication  for 
thee  that  thy  faith  fail  not ' '  (Luke  2  2 13 1/.) .  The  complacency 
of  Peter  was  shared  by  all  the  Twelve,  but  the  result  with 
Peter  was  very  sad.  In  the  Agony  in  Gethsemane  Jesus  re- 
curred to  his  anxiety:  "Pray  that  ye  enter  not  into  tempta- 
tion" (Luke  22:40).  Jesus  was  feeling  again  the  devil's 
power  as  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  when  the  Spirit 
drove  him  into  the  wilderness  when  he  was  tempted  by  Satan. 
Mark's  language  is  almost  daring.  He  does  not  say  that  the 
spirit  "drove"  (iK^dWei)  Jesus  into  temptation  (1:12), 
but  it  is  a  bold  statement  of  the  submission  of  Jesus  to  the 
leading  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Matthew  does  say:  "Then  was 
Jesus  led  up  of  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of 
the  devil"  (4:1).  Certainly  Jesus  was  conscious  of  what  was 
ahead  of  him  and  apparently  had  a  natural  reluctance  to  meet 
the  great  adversary  in  mortal  combat.  Mark  adds  that  Jesus 
"was  with  the  wild  beasts"  (1:13),  a  weird  picture  of  the 
lonely  struggle  with  the  tempter.  'The  angels  ministered 
unto  him"  (1:13),  after  the  devil  was  vanquished  Matthew 
explains  (4:11).  The  point  for  all  preachers  here  is  just  this: 
The  devil  did  not  spare  Jesus  himself.  He  will  not  hesitate 
to  try  his  power  upon  each  of  us.  It  actually  seems  that  the 
devil  is  particularly  fond  of  compassing  the  downfall  of  a 
preacher.  Paul  warns  Timothy  and  other  preachers  against 
"the  snare  of  the  devil"  (i  Tim.  3:7).    He  sets  traps  for 


82  STUDIES  IN  mark's  GOSPEL 

preachers.  Jesus  knew  what  it  was  to  meet  the  devil  at  the 
very  start  and  all  through  his  ministry  (Luke  4:13)  to  the  final 
victory. 

4.  Preaching  the  Gospel  of  God. — ^This  language  is  Mark's 
first  comment  about  Jesus  when  he  "came  into  Galilee, 
preaching  the  gospel  (good  news)  of  God."  (1:14).  He  had 
already  pictured  the  Baptist  ''preaching  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance unto  remission  of  sins"  (1:4).  The  new  preacher 
took  up  the  message  of  the  Forerunner,  these  two  Heralds 
of  the  Dawn  being  thus  linked  in  a  noble  succession:  *'The 
time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand;  repent 
ye,  and  believe  in  the  gospel"  (1:15).  The  Baptist  was  al- 
ready in  prison,  but  Jesus,  undismayed,  cried  aloud  with  the 
same  bugle-note  in  Galilee.  Preachers  through  all  the  ages 
have  been  thrown  into  prison  and  put  to  death,  but  that  has 
not  stopped  the  mouths  of  other  preachers.  The  moral 
courage  of  the  preacher  places  him  above  kings  and  Caesars 
if  he  has  the  message  of  God.  John  had  it,  Jesus  had  it, 
Paul  had  it.  Each  in  turn  forfeited  his  life  for  the  truth  that 
he  preached,  but  that  Truth  has  transformed  the  world. 
Newspapers  and  books  have  not  destroyed  the  power  of  the 
preacher  of  the  gospel  of  God.  Spurgeon  is  dead — has  been 
for  more  than  twenty-five  years — but  new  sermons  of  his  are 
eagerly  read  by  the  multitude  as  they  come  from  the  press. 
*' Believe  in  the  gospel,"  Jesus  said.  It  does  matter  what  one 
believes  and  what  he  preaches.  The  message  of  Jesus  shook 
Gahlee  and  is  shaking  the  world  to-day  like  the  guns  in  France 
and  Flanders. 

5.  Fishing  for  Fishers  of  Men. — ^The  very  first  incident  that 
Mark  records  in  the  Galilean  ministry  is  the  call  of  Simon  and 
Andrew,  James  and  John  (1:16-20).  They  were  fishers,  and 
Zebedee,  father  of  James  and  John,  employed  hired  servants 
and  seems  to  have  been  at  the  head  of  a  fish  company.  It 
was  not  the  first  time  that  this  group  had  seen  Jesus,  as  we 
know  from  John's  Gospel  (i  :34-42),  but  till  now  they  had  not 
definitely  given  up  their  caUing  as  fishermen.     "Come  ye 


JESUS  THE  EXEMPLAR  FOR  PREACHERS  83 

after  me,  and  I  will  make  you  to  become  fishers  of  men." 
These  four  laymen  (business  men)  gave  up  their  business, 
profitable  in  all  probabihty,  to  follow  Jesus  and  help  him  win 
men.  The  art  of  catching  men  for  Christ  is  the  supreme  test 
of  the  evangehstic  preacher.  It  has  to  be  learned.  Jesus 
undertakes  to  teach  these  fishers  how  to  fish  for  men.  No 
calling  is  comparable  in  dignity  with  this.  Jesus  kept  his 
promise.  We  know  something  of  Peter's  work  on  the  great 
Pentecostal  Day  and  afterwards.  John  fished  in  a  different 
way  and  wrote  the  wondrous  spiritual  Gospel  that  is  still 
winning  men  to  Christ.  James  became  the  first  martyr 
among  the  Twelve.  We  know  less  of  Andrew,  but  he  was  a 
man  of  counsel.  Each  had  his  own  way  of  fishing  for  men. 
It  is  a  part  of  every  preacher's  work  to  find  other  fishers.  A 
country  Baptist  preacher  in  North  Carolina,  Rev.  Josiah 
Elliott,  has  led  fifteen  young  men  into  the  ministry.  That  is 
in  itself  a  noble  life-work.  First  he  fishes  among  the  young 
men  in  the  churches.  Some  are  in  school,  some  in  business, 
some  in  the  professions.  *'  The  same  commit  thou  to  faithful 
men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also"  (2  Tim.  2:2). 
Paul  saw  the  same  necessity  and  urges  it  upon  Timothy  in  his 
last  Epistle.  Jesus  saw  the  need  of  it  at  the  very  beginning 
of  his  work  in  Galilee.  It  is  the  insistent  call  now  upon  modern 
men.  The  Great  War  revealed  the  alarming  dearth  of  men 
for  rehgious  work.  The  fields  were  never  so  white  for  the 
harvest,  but  the  laborers  were  lamentably  few.  We  must 
go  fishing  for  fishers  of  men. 

6.  Teaching  with  the  Note  of  Authority. — ^The  first  echo  in 
Mark  (1:22-28)  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  Galilee  is  the  as- 
tonishment of  the  crowds  in  the  synagogue.  *'They  were  as- 
tonished at  his  teaching,  for  he  taught  them  as  having  au- 
thority, not  as  the  scribes"  (1:22).  Jesus  was  both  teacher 
and  preacher.  Every  preacher  ought  to  be  a  teacher.  These 
two  aspects  of  one's  work  are  not  quite  the  same,  but  both 
ought  to  be  present  though  in  varying  proportions.  Jesus  is 
called  teacher  in  the  Gospels  more  frequently  than  preacher. 


84 

He  came  to  be  known  as  the  Teacher  (the  Master).  Both 
head  and  heart  enter  into  this  work.  Mere  instruction  with- 
out warmth  and  passion  will  not  win  a  hearing.  Mere  pas- 
sion without  teaching  will  not  stick  and  the  passion  will  be 
torn  to  tatters.  Both  light  and  heat  are  demanded  in  the 
modern  teacher-preacher.  Jesus  passed  as  a  *' rabbi,"  though 
not  a  technical  school-man.  He  was  an  irregular  rabbi,  but 
his  message  and  method  stood  out  in  sharp  contrast  with  the 
way  the  Pharisaic  rabbis  or  scribes  taught  in  the  synagogues. 
Jesus  was  allowed  the  courtesy  of  addressing  the  audiences 
in  the  synagogues.  We  know  from  the  Talmud  what  the 
rabbinical  method  of  instruction  was.  Both  in  the  Ualachah 
(the  legal  rules)  and  in  the  Haggadah  (the  explanatory  and 
anecdotal  comments)  the  scribe  was  very  slow  to  take  a  posi- 
tion that  he  could  not  support  by  quotations  from  other 
rabbis.  His  discourse  was  largely  a  string  of  quotations  and 
lacked  independence  and  the  personal  quality  that  gives 
charm  and  magnetism.  Jesus  was  like  a  breeze  from  the  hills 
in  his  originality,  outlook,  and  freshness  of  statement.  ''  What 
is  this?  A  new  teaching!  With  authority  he  commandeth 
even  the  unclean  spirits  and  they  obey  him."  There  is  httle 
room  to-day  for  the  mere  dogmatist,  but  there  is  still  less  in 
modern  preaching  for  the  spineless  doubter  who  has  no  con- 
victions and  no  power  with  God  or  men  or  over  demons. 
Jesus  stood  in  the  synagogue  the  master  over  the  forces  of 
evil  and  the  master  of  men's  consciences  which  he  challenged 
to  the  new  service  for  God  and  man.  Without  the  note  of 
authority  the  preacher  is  a  helpless  jelly-fish.  It  cannot  be 
feigned.  It  comes  only  with  the  possession  of  truth  and  is 
the  note  of  reality. 

7.  A  Healing  Ministry. — The  preaching  of  Jesus  had  a 
charm  all  its  own,  the  spell  of  which  is  still  upon  the  world. 
But  it  is  probable  that  his  healing  ministry  created  more  en- 
thusiasm and  excitement  than  his  teaching,  wondrous  as 
that  was.  Physicians  there  were,  but  they  were  woefully 
primitive  in  many  of  their  methods  and  in  much  of  their 


JESUS   THE   EXEMPLAR   FOR  PREACHERS  85 

knowledge.  Medical  knowledge  has  made  great  strides  in 
recent  years,  but  people  are  still  living  who  can  recall  the 
leeches  and  bleeding  processes  of  a  preceding  generation  of 
physicians.  Theology  for  long  was  hterally  queen  of  the 
sciences,  for  physical  science  was  slow  in  getting  on.  The- 
ology is  still  queen  of  the  sciences  in  importance  and  rejoices 
in  the  great  progress  made  in  the  treatment  of  the  ills  of  body 
and  mind.  Jesus  is  still  the  Great  Physician  of  the  ages, 
equally  at  home  in  the  treatment  of  the  sin-sick  soul  and  the 
pain-racked  body.  People  flocked  to  him  with  their  ills  as 
they  do  to  our  medical  missionaries  in  China  to-day.  Some 
had  chronic  troubles  like  the  poor  woman  who  "  had  suffered 
many  things  of  many  physicians,  and  had  spent  all  that  she 
had,  and  was  nothing  bettered,  but  rather  grew  worse" 
(Mark  5:26).  She  closely  resembles  people  to-day  who  go  from 
one  ''quack"  to  another,  for  there  were  '' quacks"  then  as 
now.  Once  more  her  hope  revived,  as  she  heard  of  the  cures 
(real  cures,  this  time)  of  the  new  healer.  So  she  slipped  up 
behind  Jesus  and  touched  his  garment  with  simple  faith. 
*'If  I  but  touch  his  garment,  I  shall  be  made  whole"  (5:28). 
Jesus  felt  power  go  from  him  as  she  was  healed.  It  cost 
Christ  something  to  heal  the  sick  as  well  as  to  save  the  lost. 
Christianity  has  two  sides  to  its  work,  the  ministry  to  the 
soul  and  the  ministry  to  the  body.  Jesus  combined  them  and 
we  must  do  the  same.  It  does  not  follow  that  the  modern 
preacher  should  be  a  physician  or  should  be  a  professional 
faith-healer.  Paul,  the  preacher,  and  Luke,  the  physician, 
worked  together.  So  the  Christian  preacher  and  the  Chris- 
tian physician  should  cooperate  in  their  work  for  the  whole 
man.  Hospitals  are  a  fit  expression  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus. 
Jesus  did  not  make  the  cure  of  the  body  his  chief  task,  but 
he  showed  mercy  upon  the  suffering  at  every  turn  and  it  is  an 
empty  Christianity  to-day  that  does  not  enter  into  the  Red 
Cross  spirit.  The  Cross  of  Jesus  has  a  message  for  the  soul 
and  the  body. 

8.  Hindered  hy  His  Popularity, — Early  in  the  Galilean 


86  STUDIES  IN  IklARK's   GOSPEL 

ministry  the  great  crowds  pressed  upon  Jesus  in  such  throngs 
that  he  felt  them  as  a  hindrance  to  his  work.  So  he  sought 
reHef  in  prayer,  rising  long  before  day  and  going  out  to  a 
desert  place  to  pray,  only  to  have  Peter  rush  upon  him  with 
the  cry,  "All  are  seeking  thee"  (i  13 5^.)-  Time  and  again  the 
pressure  of  the  crowds  caused  Jesus  to  seek  the  woods  and  the 
fields  and  communion  with  the  Father.  "Jesus  could  no 
more  openly  enter  into  a  city,  but  was  without  in  desert 
places;  and  they  came  to  him  from  every  quarter"  (1:45). 
The  peril  of  the  crowd  is  felt  by  every  popular  preacher.  To 
be  sure,  there  is  danger  in  the  absence  of  the  people,  danger 
of  a  drying  up  of  life  and  a  slowing  down  of  energy  unless  one 
keeps  himself  alive  to  the  real  greatness  of  his  task  in  a  small 
place  so  that  he  shall  do  a  big  work  in  a  Httle  place  which  is 
far  better  than  a  httle  work  in  a  big  place.  But  many  a 
preacher  who  has  caught  the  ear  of  the  crowd  has  lost  the  true 
perspective  and  has  lived  with  the  crowd  too  much.  He  has 
not  followed  the  example  of  Jesus  in  going  to  the  desert  places, 
the  secret  places  with  God  and  nature,  for  spiritual  renewal. 
Mother  earth  is  good  for  the  recuperation  of  the  preacher's 
energy  and  for  wholesome  outlook  upon  the  realities  of  life. 
It  is  poor  economy  for  the  busy  preacher  to  neglect  his  books, 
his  closet,  his  recreation.  The  crowds  may  upset  his  nerves, 
sap  his  energy,  and  rob  him  of  his  power.  Then  the  crowds 
will  leave  him  alone  and  for  good. 

9.  Seeking  Rest  and  Finding  Work. — ^This  has  been  the 
fate  of  many  a  tired  preacher  who  hied  him  to  the  hills  and 
found  rest  in  work  instead  of  repose.  And  yet  absolute  rest 
is  sometimes  required.  Jesus  sought  it  and  he  made  the 
Twelve  try  it  when  they  came  back  from  the  strenuous  cam- 
paign through  Gahlee.  "Come  ye  yourselves  apart  into  a 
desert  place,  and  rest  a  while.  For  there  were  many  coming 
and  going  and  they  had  no  leisure,  so  much  as  to  eat"  (6:31). 
So  they  went  off  in  the  heat  with  Jesus  to  a  desert  place  near 
Bethsaida- Julias  where  the  grass  was  green  on  the  mountain 
side,  a  lovely  place  for  an  outing  with  the  Teacher.    But  the 


JESUS  THE  EXEMPLAR  FOR  PREACHERS  87 

rest  was  rudely  broken  by  the  rush  of  the  crowds  round  the 
lake.  What  was  Jesus  to  do?  He  did  not  disappomt  the  mul- 
titudes, hungry  for  the  bread  of  life.  He  had  compassion 
on  the  people  and,  tired  as  he  was,  roused  himself  for  the 
work  of  teaching  and  heaUng.  Then  they  had  a  picnic  on  a 
grand  scale  as  Jesus  made  the  Twelve  act  as  waiters  for  the 
five  thousand  men  (what  a  men's  meeting  in  the  open!)  be- 
sides women  and  children.  Never  mind  now  about  this 
miracle  of  emergency.  Jesus  was  equal  to  every  occasion 
and  the  outcome  stirred  the  people  to  the  highest  pitch  of 
excitement.  They  wanted  to  make  him  king  now  without 
delay  and  to  set  up  a  kingdom  independent  of  Rome.  To 
escape  from  this  predicament  the  Master  sent  the  disciples 
home  in  the  boat  "while  he  himself  sendeth  the  multitudes 
away"  (6:45).  Then  "he  departed  into  the  mountain  to 
pray,"  to  spend  most  of  the  night  alone  with  the  Father  in 
the  hills.  That  was  refreshment  for  his  spirit  and  for  his  body. 
10.  Finding  Difficulty  in  Teaching  His  Students. — It  is 
pathetic  to  see  how  hard  it  was  for  the  twelve  apostles,  who 
were  so  close  to  the  Master  and  so  constantly  with  him,  to 
learn  the  truth  about  his  person  and  his  message.  They 
were  at  first  the  product  of  the  Pharisaic  environment  of 
Palestine.  All  but  Judas  were  from  Galilee  which  was  less 
in  the  grip  of  the  rabbis  than  Judea.  But  they  all,  even  the 
spiritual  John,  found  it  difiicult  to  brush  aside  the  rabbinical 
cobwebs  so  cunningly  spun  around  their  heads.  Jesus  was 
patient  with  them  and  tried  many  expedients  as  a  teacher. 
He  taught  them  in  public  and  in  private.  He  is  himself  the 
master  teacher  of  all  time  and  reveals  all  the  pedagogical 
skill  that  other  teachers  gain  more  or  less  by  long  and  labo- 
rious study.  It  is  all  spontaneous  with  Jesus.  A  greater 
than  Aristotle  is  here,  but  these  chosen  men,  the  flower  of 
the  early  days  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  open  slowly 
to  the  rays  of  the  sun.  Sometimes  they  asked  Jesus  what 
he  meant.  "And  when  he  was  entered  into  the  house  from 
the  multitude,  his  disciples  asked  of  him  the  parable.    And 


88  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

he  saith  unto  them,  Are  ye  so  without  understanding  also?  " 
(7:17/.).  Jesus  took  them  with  him  out  of  GaHlee  for  some 
months  of  special  training  and  still  they  failed  to  understand 
Christ's  method.  ''Do  ye  not  yet  perceive,  neither  under- 
stand? Have  ye  your  heart  hardened?  Having  eyes,  see  ye 
not?  And  having  ears,  hear  ye  not?  And  do  ye  not  remem- 
ber? "  (8:17/.).  Every  teacher  can  sympathize  with  Jesus  at 
this  point.  And  yet  these  men  did  finally  come  to  know  Jesus. 
II.  Misunderstood  by  Some  of  His  Friends. — It  is  a  hard 
lot  for  a  preacher  to  be  unappreciated  at  home  by  those  who 
ought  to  love  him  most  and  to  know  him  best.  Jesus  had  the 
love  and  sympathy  of  his  mother  from  the  first  and  at  the 
last,  for  she  stood  by  the  Cross  as  he  died,  with  the  sword 
through  her  heart  as  Simeon  had  said  would  come  to  pass. 
But  there  was  a  time  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus  when  many 
seemed  to  feel  that  the  strain  had  become  too  great  for  her 
wondrous  son.  The  rabbis  were  saying  that  Jesus  was  in 
league  with  Beelzebub  in  explanation  of  his  undoubted 
miracles.  This  she  knew  to  be  utterly  untrue,  but  it  was 
humiliating  to  her  pride  to  hear  him  so  maligned.  He  did, 
forsooth,  act  strangely  at  times.  Sometimes  the  multitude 
pressed  upon  him  so  that  he  and  they  ''could  not  so  much  as 
eat  bread.  And  when  his  friends  heard  it,  they  went  to  lay 
hands  on  him;  for  they  said.  He  is  beside  himself"  (3:20/.). 
This  was  the  charitable  construction  of  his  conduct  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  biting  cynicism  of  the  scribes  (3:22).  Finally 
*' there  come  his  mother  and  his  brethren;  and,  standing 
without,  they  sent  unto  him,  calling  him"  (3:31).  Evidently 
they  wish  to  take  him  home  till  he  is  calmer  and  comes  to 
himself.  It  is  not  hard  to  imagine  the  agony  in  Mary's  heart 
at  this  situation.  The  brothers  probably  felt  a  sort  of  supe- 
riority to  Jesus  and  a  dislike  for  the  unpleasant  notoriety 
that  he  was  giving  to  the  quiet  Nazareth  household.  Some- 
times one's  "friends"  make  apology  for  one  by  the  explana- 
tion that  he  is  a  httle  "off"  and  should  be  excused.  Few 
preachers  of  energy  and  individuaUty  escape  such  "friends." 


JESUS   THE   EXEMPLAR   FOR   PREACHERS  89 

12.  Understanding  Children. — But,  if  Jesus  was  misunder- 
stood by  others,  he  himself  was  at  one  with  Httle  children. 
They  are  the  severest  critics  of  all,  for  they  have  no  affecta- 
tions and  either  like  you  or  do  not  like  you.  If  a  preacher 
can  Vv^in  and  hold  the  children,  he  need  not  bother  about  the 
older  people.  They  will  at  least  be  sure  to  understand  his 
sermons  if  the  children  do  so.  Most  of  them  will  love  the 
preacher  because  he  has  won  their  children.  It  seems  odd 
to  us  to-day  that  the  world  has  been  so  slow  in  appreciating 
childhood  which  is  the  real  wealth  of  a  nation.  Children 
were  never  in  the  way  of  Jesus.  Even  the  apostles  once  re- 
buked a  group  of  mothers  for  bringing  their  little  children  to 
Jesus  to  receive  his  blessing  (10:13).  They  evidently  felt 
that  it  was  a  bother  to  Jesus  to  be  interrupted  by  children, 
much  as  some  people  dislike  to  have  children  in  church  and, 
as  a  result,  never  have  them  there  when  they  grow  up.  To- 
day after  almost  any  Sunday  School  service  one  sees  the  great 
crowd  of  the  pupils  going  home  instead  of  to  church.  But 
Jesus  was  indignant  at  the  disciples  for  such  an  estimate  of 
his  attitude  toward  children,  urged  that  children  be  allowed 
to  come  to  him,  made  ''a  little  child"  the  type  of  the  sub- 
jects of  the  kingdom,  and  took  the  children  into  his  arms  and 
blessed  them  (10:14-16).  Once  before  Jesus  took  a  little 
child  into  his  arms  and  set  it  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples  as 
an  object  lesson  to  them  in  their  disputes,  a  sort  of  kinder- 
garten lesson  for  the  preachers.  Jesus  has  created  the  modern 
child's  world  of  joy  and  gladness  and  always  had  room  in  his 
heart  and  in  his  arms  for  them. 

13.  The  Test  of  the  Greatest  Preacher. — People  differ  greatly 
in  their  views  of  preaching  and  that  is  not  wholly  bad,  for 
the  great  variety  of  preachers  suits  different  classes.  No 
one  preacher  pleases  all.  John  the  Baptist  did  not  do  it 
nor  did  Jesus  nor  did  Paul.  There  is  no  one  single  test  of 
good  speaking,  but  there  is  a  test  for  the  greatness  of  a 
preacher's  ministry.  The  sermon  is  by  no  means  all  of  his 
work,  important  as  that  is.    Preachers  are  sometimes  jealous 


90 

of  each  other  as  doctors  are  envious  of  doctors,  lawyers  of 
lawyers.  Even  the  twelve  apostles  ''disputed  one  with  an- 
other in  the  way,  who  was  the  greatest"  (9:34).  Now  the 
ambition  to  be  great  is  not  in  itself  evil  any  more  than  is  the 
longing  to  be  good.  It  all  depends  on  one's  notion  of  great- 
ness. If  it  is  simply  self-aggrandizement,  then  it  is  vanity. 
If  it  is  self-advancement  at  the  expense  of  others,  it  is  evil. 
Jesus  gave  the  disciples  a  new  ideal  of  greatness,  that  of 
humihty  and  service.  "If  any  man  would  be  first,  he  shall 
be  last  of  all,  and  minister  of  all "  (9 135).  This  is  an  absolutely 
revolutionary  idea  and  yet  it  is  destined  to  conquer  the  world 
in  the  end.  It  hes  at  the  root  of  real  patriotism,  of  love  of 
father  and  mother  and  child,  of  all  the  Christian  activities 
of  the  world,  of  missions,  of  Red  Cross  work,  of  the  preacher's 
whole  life,  of  the  Ufe  of  every  child  of  God. 

14.  The  Ministry  of  Sympathy. — In  it  all  Christ  never  lost 
the  sympathetic  cjiord  that  gives  nobility  to  human  effort. 
Compassed  on  every  side  by  theological  obscurantism  and 
ecclesiastical  red-tape,  Jesus  burst  through  it  all.  On  his 
way  to  the  crucifixion  he  bore  his  own  cross  like  the  Son  of 
Man  and  like  the  Son  of  God.  Even  on  the  Cross  Jesus 
prayed  for  forgiveness  for  those  who  were  taking  his  fife. 
Tragedy  enters  into  the  Hves  of  other  preachers  though  not 
on  this  scale.  Broadus  used  to  say  that  sympathy  was  the 
chief  element  in  effective  preaching.  But  no  preacher  is 
really  efi&cient  till  his  heart  is  touched  with  sorrows.  Then 
he  will  know  how  to  be  a  S3anpathetic  and  tender  shepherd 
to  the  lambs  that  are  lost  in  the  storm,  and  will  go  after  them 
and  bring  them  back.  It  is  the  cry  of  the  lost  sheep  that 
broke  the  heart  of  Christ.  They  are  still  crying  on  the  moun- 
tains for  you  and  for  me. 

15.  Courage  unto  Death} — ^No  man  ever  displayed  more 
courage  than  Jesus.  The  minister  is  lost  who  is  a  coward. 
The  people  will  not  respect  him  or  hear  his  message.  Crit- 
icism is  to  be  expected  by  those  who  bring  a  new  message 

^  The  Christian  Workers'  Magazine  (Chicago),  Feb.,  1918. 


JESUS   THE   EXEMPLAR   FOR  PREACHERS  9 1 

and  who  attack  vested  interests  and  inherited  prejudices 
and  estabhshed  traditions.  Jesus,  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  Pharisees,  was  an  iconoclast  and  a  dangerous  revolution- 
ist whose  work  was  subversive  of  all  the  religious  traditions 
of  the  fathers.  He  early  made  his  choice  and  attacked  the 
current  religious  leaders  who  were  responsible  for  the  shackles 
on  the  people  and  defied  them.  He  did  this  boldly  and  re- 
peatedly when  he  saw  that  this  course  led  to  the  Cross.  He 
claimed  power  to  forgive  sins  when  the  Pharisees  accused  him 
of  blasphemy  and  healed  the  paralytic  to  prove  the  truth  of 
his  claim  (2:10).  He  disregarded  Pharisaic  exclusiveness 
and  associated  with  publicans  and  sinners  at  Levi's  feast 
(2:16).  He  justified  the  disregard  of  the  stated  fasts  of  the 
Jews  by  his  disciples  to  the  disgust  of  the  disciples  of  John 
now  in  collusion  with  the  disciples  of  the  Pharisees.  This  he 
did  on  the  ground  of  the  radical  difference  between  Christian- 
ity and  current  Judaism.  He  defied  Pharisaic  rules  about 
Sabbath  observance  and  justified  his  right  to  interpret  the 
day  as  the  servant,  not  the  master  of  man  (2:23-3:6).  One 
of  the  sharpest  attacks  made  against  Christ  by  the  Pharisees 
was  because  his  disciples  ignored  their  scruples  by  eating 
with  unwashed  hands  (7:1-23).  Jesus  charged  them  with 
setting  at  naught  the  Word  of  God  by  the  traditions  of  men. 
Jesus  was  a  religious  and  social  reformer  and  he  struck  hard 
at  the  abuses  in  his  time.  He  hit  hardest  the  professional 
pietists  of  the  day  whom  he  termed  hypocrites  because  they 
stood  in  the  way  of  the  establishment  of  real  righteousness. 
Vital  religion  was  hindered  by  the  dead  ceremoniaUsm  all 
about  him.  Every  evangehst  feels  the  chill  of  a  cold  church 
life  when  he  meets  it. 

Jesus  moves  as  Master  everywhere  whether  in  the  midst 
of  hostile  criticism  from  Pharisees  and  home-folks  (3:20-35); 
or  pressed  by  a  curious  and  superficial  crowd  by  the  sea  who 
do  not  know  how  to  use  their  eyes  and  their  ears  and  their 
minds  and  to  whom  the  parabolic  teaching  is  a  closed  book 
(4:1-9);  or  with  his  own  disciples  who  struggle  to  apprehend 


92  STUDIES  IN  MARK  S   GOSPEL 

his  enigmatic  sayings  (4:10-34)  and  hopelessly  flounder  in 
doubt  when  they  seem  to  be  sinking  in  the  storm  at  sea 
(4:35-41);  or  grappling  with  a  legion  of  demons  who  go  from 
man  to  swine  in  a  mad  rush  to  the  sea  with  the  result  that 
Jesus  is  urged  to  leave  that  region  (5:1-20)  as  many  another 
Christian  worker  has  been  since  in  other  spheres  of  influence; 
or  feeling  power  go  out  of  him  as  a  poor  woman  touches  the 
hem  of  his  garment  in  the  throng  (5 :3o) ;  or  overcoming  death 
in  the  home  of  Jairus  when  he  takes  the  little  girl  by  the  hand 
and  Hfts  her  up  to  the  amazement  of  all  (5:41) ;  or  once  more 
astonishing  the  people  of  Nazareth  by  his  words  and  his  won- 
ders since  they  could  not  comprehend  how  a  man  reared  in 
their  town  could  really  do  what  Jesus  apparently  did  (6:3). 
It  has  often  been  a  mystery  to  people  how  a  green  boy  reared 
among  them  could  ever  come  to  be  a  master  workman  for 
God.    We  are  all  provincial  in  our  prejudices. 

16.  An  Itinerant  Preacher} — ^Jesus  was  constantly  on  the 
go  during  his  brief  ministry.  He  went  on  to  *'  the  next  towns  " 
(Mark  1:38),  like  the  modern  missionary  evangelist.  There 
was  little  time  for  study  in  the  modern  sense  of  that  term. 
We  do  not  think  of  Jesus  as  a  bookish  preacher,  and  yet 
his  preaching  astonished  the  people  precisely  by  marvelous 
insight  into  the  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
He  denounced  the  rabbis  (the  current  preachers)  for  their 
slavery  to  tradition  and  ignorance  of  the  Word  of  God.  *' Ye 
leave  the  commandment  of  God,  and  hold  fast  the  tradition 
of  men"  (7:8),  *' making  void  the  word  of  God  by  your  tradi- 
tion" (7:13).  Thomson^  thinks  that  Jesus  was  a  student  of 
the  Jewish  apocalypses.  Charles  believes  that  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  reveals  knowledge  of  ''The  Testimony  of  the 
Twelve  Patriarchs."  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  most  strik- 
ing thing  about  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  its  originality  and 
its  universality.^     The  thinking   of  Jesus  is  modern  and 

1  The  Christian  Advocate  (New  York),  Aug.  i,  19 18. 

2  Books  which  have  Influenced  our  Lord. 

8  Cf.  Johnston  Ross,  The  Universality  of  Jesus. 


JESUS  THE  EXEMPLAR  FOR  PREACHERS  93 

still  far  ahead  of  the  best  modern  ideals  in  spite  of  its 
Palestinian  environment.  Isolated  sayings  of  Jesus  have 
parallels  in  the  Talmud,  but  the  Talmud  is  a  dead  intellec- 
tual incubus,  while  the  words  of  Jesus  have  life  and  power  to 
rejuvenate  the  world.  The  modern  man's  deepest  philosophy 
is  following  after  this  itinerant  GaUlean  preacher.  Preachers 
to-day  often  excuse  themselves  from  profound  study  on  the 
plea  that  they  are  too  busy.  The  manifold  demands  of  a 
city  pastorate  preclude  technical  Biblical  knowledge.  And 
yet  no  sermons  through  the  ages  are  comparable  in  pith 
and  power  with  those  of  this  busiest  of  all  preachers  whom 
the  crowds  pressed  almost  to  suffocation.  These  sermons 
dropped  from  his  Hps  in  matchless  perfection  of  substance  and 
form.  Unwasted  through  Jesus  was,  eternal  Youth  that  he 
is,  yet  the  multitudes  sapped  his  vital  energy  as  he  felt  power 
go  out  from  him  (5:30).  Any  one  who  has  really  preached 
knows  what  it  is  to  be  ^' clean  gone."  There  can  be  no  ef- 
fective preaching  without  expenditure  of  vital  force. 

17.  Christ's  Method  and  Manner  in  Preaching. — Jesus  used 
the  conversational  style  as  a  rule.  He  spoke  over  nobody's 
head.  Sometimes  in  the  presence  of  great  multitudes  he 
spoke  in  an  elevated  tone  of  voice  so  as  to  be  heard.  "And 
he  called  to  him  the  multitudes  again,  and  said  into  them, 
Hear  me  all  of  you,  and  understand"  (7:14).  Every  speaker 
knows  what  this  means.  Mere  loudness  will  not  carry  con- 
viction, but  in  the  presence  of  a  great  crowd  one  must  make 
himself  heard  if  possible  so  as  to  drive  the  truth  home.  But 
often  Jesus  spoke  as  the  teacher  to  a  smaller  group  gathered 
round  him.  In  this  free  interplay  we  see  Jesus  in  his  usual 
conversational  mood.  It  is  a  curious  instance  of  development 
that  our  word  homiletics  comes  from  the  Greek  homileo, 
which  means  to  converse.  Luke  uses  it  of  the  talk  of  the  two 
disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus  as  *'  they  communed  (w/x-t  Aow) 
with  each  other."  ^  Jesus  was  quick  to  notice  inattention, 
and  often  urges  closer  attention.  "If  any  man  hath  ears  to 
1  Cf.  Bond,  The  Master  Preacher. 


94 

hear,  let  him  hear"  (4.23).  He  was  responsive  to  the  chang- 
ing moods  of  his  audience,  as  every  orator  is.  Jesus  not 
only  had  compassion  (6:34)  on  the  multitude  and  *' began 
to  teach  them,"  eager  as  they  were  for  the  bread  of  life,  but 
he  also  knew  when  to  stop  and  to  send  the  multitude  away 
even  when  they  did  not  wish  to  go  (6 145) .  He  had  compassion 
for  their  physical  wants  also  (8:2):  "They  will  faint  on  the 
way;  and  some  of  them  are  from  afar."  The  modern  preacher 
who  is  utterly  obUvious  to  the  physical  conditions  of  his 
ministry  will  fail  to  win  a  hearing  and  will  lose  his  crowd. 

Mark  has  the  advantage  of  Peter's  keen  eyes  and  tells  us 
much  about  the  looks  and  gestures  of  Jesus.  *' And  when  he 
had  looked  round  about  on  them  with  anger,  being  grieved 
at  the  hardening  of  their  heart,  he  saith  unto  the  man, 
Stretch  forth  they  hand"  (3 :5).  One  can  almost  see  the  flash 
of  the  eye  as  Jesus  swept  round  the  synagogue  that  look 
of  scorn  that  set  the  Pharisees  and  Herodians  wild  with  rage. 
When  his  mother  and  brothers  came  to  take  Jesus  home, 
*'  looking  round  on  them  that  sat  round  about  him,  he  saith, 
Behold  my  mother  and  my  brethreft  "  (3 134) .  When  the  rich 
young  ruler  came  to  Jesus  he  "looking  upon  him  loved  him" 
(10:21).  "And  Jesus  looked  round  about  and  saith"  (10:23), 
"Jesus  looking  upon  them,  saith"  (10:27).  Mark  gives  this 
vivid  picture  of  the  strain  written  on  the  face  of  Jesus:  "And 
Jesus  was  going  before  them:  and  they  were  amazed;  and 
they  that  followed  were  afraid"  (10:32).^ 

It  is  easy  to  see  in  Mark  that  Jesus  used  repartee,  wit, 
humor,  irony,  sarcasm,  invective,  question,  appeal,  rebuke. 
It  is  all  life  where  Jesus  is.  He  let  his  hearers  tali  back.  The 
electric  spark  flashes  and  strikes  fire.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
think  that  Jesus  was  a  student  of  Greek  rhetoric  or  of  the 
rabbinical  dialectic.  But  it  is  not  hard  to  find  examples  of 
the  diatribe,  of  the  Socratic  method  of  questioning,  of  the 
rabbinical  refinement  of  thought.  What  we  find  in  Christ's 
teaching  and  preaching  is  not  the  rules  of  the  schools  or  of  the 
1  Cf.  Law,  The  Emotions  of  Jesus. 


JESUS  THE  EXEMPLAR  FOR  PREACHERS  95 

books,  but  the  appeal  to  the  laws  of  human  thought.  We  are 
in  the  presence  of  one  who  is  master  of  the  mind  of  man, 
and  plays  upon  it  with  the  precision  of  a  master  musician.^ 
Jesus  encouraged  questions.  The  people  asked  him  *'why," 
*'what,"  and  "how."  But  he  often  gave  question  for  ques- 
tion, as  in  2.18/.  and  in  2:24/.  Often  Jesus  would  challenge 
attention  at  the  start  by  a  question,  as  in  3  -.4.  People  learned 
to  expect  something  when  he  put  out  these  sharp  questions. 
An  example  of  irony  is  in  7 19 :  *'  Full  well  do  ye  reject  the  com- 
mandment of  God,  that  ye  may  keep  your  traditions."  It 
is  jejune  not  to  see  the  point  here.  The  playful  wit  of  Jesus 
appears  in  his  bantering  repartee  with  the  Syrophcenician 
woman,  who  brightly  took  up  the  word  of  Christ  about  "  the 
httle  dogs"  (Kvvdpux):  "Yea,  Lord;  even  the  dogs  under  the 
table  eat  of  the  children's  crumbs"  (7:28).  "For  this  saying 
go  thy  way."  Did  not  Jesus  smile  graciously  upon  her  as 
he  spoke?  ^  Sometunes  Jesus  has  to  rebuke  his  own  dis- 
ciples even  sharply,  as  in  7:18:  "Are  ye  so  without  under- 
standing also?"  Even  to  Peter  he  had  once  to  say:  "Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan"  {S:7,7,)'  To  James  and  John,  Christ 
has  to  reply:  "Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask. " 

Jesus  met  current  problems  in  his  preaching,  but  only  to 
show  the  eternal  value  of  spiritual  reahties.  In  an  unspiritual 
age  he  struck  the  spiritual  note  and  held  to  it,  though  his 
own  disciples  failed  to  understand  his  conception  of  the  King- 
dom even  after  his  resurrection  (Acts  1:6).  His  own  age 
crucified  him  because  he  would  not  fall  in  with  the  current 
theology  of  the  rabbis.  They  killed  the  Prince  of  Life,  who 
brought  life  and  immortality  to  light. 

The  illustrations  of  Jesus  surpass  those  of  all  other  preach- 
ers. The  rabbis  used  parables  before  Jesus  taught.  We  have 
many  of  them  in  the  Talmud,  but  they  do  not  measure  up  to 
the  standards  set  by  Jesus.  Even  the  disciples  were  puzzled 
by  the  parables  of  Christ,  and  asked  him  in  private  to  in- 

1  Cf.  Hitchcock,  The  Psychology  of  Jesus. 

2  Cf.  Wunkhaus,  Der  Humor  Jesu. 


96  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

terpret  them  (4:10-34).  They  served  various  purposes. 
They  caught  flagging  attention  and  held  it  by  the  power  of 
the  story.  They  sent  a  shaft  where  the  truth  could  else  not 
go.  They  concealed  the  message  from  those  not  able  and  not 
worthy  to  hear  it,  while  reveaUng  to  the  spiritually  minded 
the  mystery  of  the  Kingdom  (4:10).  The  point  of  the  story 
would  stick  with  the  parable  and  be  understood  later  if  not  at 
the  moment.  Christ's  parables  are  the  perfection  of  story- 
telling and  linger  in  the  mind  with  the  charm  of  sweet  music 
or  lash  the  conscience  like  whips.  The  parables  of  Jesus 
always  illustrate.  But  this  subject  calls  for  special  treat- 
ment in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VIII      • 

THE  PARABLES   OF   JESUS   IN   MARK's   GOSPEL  ^ 
"And  he  taught  them  many  things  in  parables."    Mark  4:2. 

1.  Parables  Less  Prominent  than  Miracles  in  Mark. — Mark's 
Gospel  is  noted  for  its  report  of  miracles  rather  than  for 
its  record  of  parables.  The  deeds  of  Jesus  rather  than  his 
words  confront  us.  And  yet  the  teaching  of  Christ  is  by- 
no  means  neglected.  It  is  here  alone  that  ''BeHeve  in  the 
gospel"  (Mark  1:15)  is  preserved.  Papias  expressly  says 
that  Mark  ''wrote  accurately  what  he  recalled  of  the  things 
said  or  done  by  Christ/'  what  he  recalled  of  Peter's  preach- 
ing about  Jesus.  In  a  word,  in  Mark's  Gospel  we  see  Christ 
in  action,  but  ''Jesus  came  into  Galilee,  preaching  the  gospel 
of  God."  (1:14).  Jesus  in  the  Second  Gospel  is  not  a  mere 
miracle  worker.  He  is  distinctly  and  at  once  set  forth  as  the 
Preacher  and  Teacher.  In  the  synagogue  in  Capernaum 
"they  were  astonished  at  his  teaching;  for  he  taught  them 
as  having  authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes"  (1:22).  The 
teaching  of  Jesus  was  as  sensational  as  his  miracles.  "And 
they  were  all  amazed,  insomuch  that  they  questioned  among 
themselves,  saying.  What  is  this?    A  new  teaching!"    (i  :27). 

2.  Definition  of  Parable. — ^No  element  of  Christ's  teaching 
was  more  bewildering  to  his  hearers  than  his  use  of  parables. 
The  Jewish  rabbis  made  copious  use  of  parables,  but  they  lack 
the  stamp  of  originality  that  belongs  to  those  of  Jesus.  The 
parables  of  the  rabbis,  as  we  have  them  in  the  Talmud,  are 
more  or  less  perfunctory  and  common-place,  not  to  say  ar- 
tificial, unnatural,  and  fantastic.  ^    They  do  not  haunt  the 

1  The  Expositor  (Cleveland),  May,  1918. 

2  CJ.  Trench's  Notes  on  the  Parables. 

97 


95  STtJDIES  IN  MARK  S  GOSPEL 

mind  and  linger  in  the  memory  in  the  way  that  those  of  Jesus 
do.  The  beauty  of  his  parables  charms  us  even  when  we  do 
not  at  once  see  the  point  of  the  story.  As  a  rule  the  point  is 
clear,  but  sometimes  it  is  purposely  obscure  for  the  confusion 
of  the  enemies  of  Christ.  An  illustration  is  designed  to  throw 
light  on  the  point  under  discussion.  The  parable  is  one 
form  of  illustration.  It  takes  a  familiar  fact  in  nature  and 
puts  it  beside  the  less  familiar  moral  or  spiritual  truth.  The 
comparison  clarifies  the  truth.  The  parable  may  be  extended 
narrative  or  crisp  epigrammatic  metaphor.  It  may  be 
formal  comparison  or  implied  comparison.  It  is  unlike  the 
fable  which  is  grotesque  and  contrary  to  nature.  The  par- 
able, while  either  fiction  or  fact,  is  always  in  harmony  with 
nature.  It  is  always  possible  and  true  to  the  laws  of  the 
person  or  thing  used  for  the  story.  The  parable  could  have 
happened. 

It  is  not  always  easy  to  draw  the  line  between  parable  and 
metaphor.  Jesus  saw  Simon  and  Andrew  casting  a  net  into 
the  sea,  ''for  they  were  fishers.  And  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
Come  ye  after  me,  and  I  will  make  you  to  become  fishers  of 
men"  (Mark  1:17).  Put  beside  this  passage  these  words 
from  Luke  4:23:  "And  he  said  unto  them.  Doubtless  ye  will 
say  unto  me  this  parable,  Physician,  heal  thyself;  whatso- 
ever we  have  heard  done  at  Capernaum,  do  also  here  in 
thine  own  country."  The  parabolic  proverb  lies  in  the  use 
of  "physician."  Why  not  call  "fishers  of  men"  a  parable? 
Must  we  not,  then,  find  a  parabolic  proverb  also  in  Mark 
2:17:  "They  that  are  whole  have  no  need  of  a  physician,  but 
they  that  are  sick:  I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but 
sinners"? 

Jesus  here  first  states  the  parable  and  then  explains  it. 
How  far  to  use  details  in  explaining  the  parable  is  always 
a  question.  Trench  ^  overdoes  it.  Bruce  ^  is  a  better 
guide. 

3.  Groups  of  Parables. — So  in  Mark  2:18-22  Jesus  employs 

1  Notes  on  the  Parables.  ^  The  Parabolic  Teaching  of  Christ. 


THE   PARABLES   OF  JESUS   IN   MARK's    GOSPEL         99 

three  parables  in  defense  of  his  disciples  who  had  not  joined 
in  one  of  the  stated  fasts  of  the  Jews  along  with  "John's 
disciples  and  the  disciples  of  the  Pharisees"  when  these 
unite  in  complaint  against  them.  One  regrets  to  see  the 
disciples  of  the  Baptist  thus  drawn  into  opposition  to  Jesus 
by  the  activity  of  the  Pharisees.  But  clearly  Jesus  has  gone 
further  in  his  independent  attitude  towards  Jewish  cere- 
moniahsm  than  John  had.  Besides,  John  is  still  in  prison 
and  his  disciples  may  resent  the  apparent  indifference  of 
Jesus  to  the  fate  of  his  forerunner.  Already  disciples  of 
John  had  exhibited  jealousy  of  the  growing  fame  of  Jesus 
(John  3:26).  The  disciples  of  Jesus  had  just  gone  with  him 
to  the  feast  of  Levi  with  the  publicans  and  sinners  (Mark 
2:13-17)  probably  at  the  very  time  of  one  of  the  regular 
fasts  (Mark  2:18).  Hence  the  reaction  of  John's  disciples 
to  the  side  of  the  Pharisees,  the  critics  of  Jesus.  In  defense 
Jesus  uses  his  favorite  method  of  parabolic  teaching.  He 
contrasts  the  inevitable  conflict  between  the  old  and  the 
new  by  the  parables  of  the  sons  of  the  bride-chamber  or 
companions  of  the  bridegroom,  the  patched  garment,  and 
the  wine-skins.  Mark  does  not  call  these  sayings  parables, 
but  Luke  (5:36)  does:  ''And  he  spake  also  a  parable  unto 
them."  Luke  then  gives  the  parable  of  the  patched  garment. 
If  one  is  a  parable,  the  others  are.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that  the  Baptist  had  termed  Jesus  *'the  bridegroom"  and 
himself  *'the  friend  of  the  bridegroom"  (John  3:29).  There 
is  thus  an  echo  of  the  Baptist's  own  words  in  the  reply  of 
Jesus  to  the  mistaken  disciples  of  John.  They  are  in  the 
wrong  group  and  have  missed  their  way  about  both  John 
and  Jesus.  These  three  parables  present  in  wonderful  fash- 
ion the  line  of  cleavage  between  Jewish  ceremonialism  and 
spiritual  Christianity.  The  gospel  of  Christ  is  not  to  be 
cribbed  and  cabined  by  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  old 
dispensation  which  had  their  place  and  service  then.  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  give  these  three  parables,  but  evidently  get 
them  from  Mark  who  wrote  first  and  records  Peter's  vivid 


lOO  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

recital  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  Christianity  is  still  bursting 
the  shell  of  the  old  as  the  life  of  the  new  expands. 

The  miracles  of  Jesus  are  acted  parables  and  the  parables 
are  pedagogic  miracles,  as  Augustine  said.  In  Mark  5:39 
Jesus,  upon  entering  the  house  of  Jairus  where  many  were 
weeping  and  wailing  greatly,  says,  *'  Why  make  ye  a  tumult 
and  weep?  The  child  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth."  It  is 
probable  that  here  Jesus  is  using  figurative  language  as  in 
John  11:4:  *'This  sickness  is  not  unto  death"  and  in  ii:ii: 
*'Our  friend  Lazarus  is  asleep;  but  I  go,  that  I  may  awake 
him  out  of  sleep."  And  yet  Lazarus  was  dead  for  four  days 
when  Jesus  raised  him  from  the  dead.  But  even  so  the 
language  is  more  metaphorical  than  technically  parabolic. 

But  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  parables  in  Mark  3:23-27 
for  Mark  expressly  says:  *'And  he  called  them  unto  him, 
and  said  unto  them  in  parables."  Then  we  have  several 
brief  pictures  about  Satan  casting  out  Satan,  a  kingdom 
divided  against  itself,  a  house  divided  against  itself,  like 
cinema  flashes  that  swiftly  turn  on  the  light  and  show  the 
utter  absurdity  of  the  charge  that  Jesus  cast  out  demons  by 
the  power  of  Beelzebub.  Jesus  often  used  this  rapid-fire 
method  with  a  number  of  parables.  Instance  the  three  in 
Luke  14,  the  three  in  Luke  15  (the  lost  sheep,  the  lost  coin, 
the  lost  son),  the  seven  and  more  in  Matthew  13,  the  three 
in  Matthew  21  and  22.  Each  parable  presents  a  new  facet 
of  the  truth  while  all  sides  of  the  question  are  brought  to 
light. 

Another  group  of  parables  occurs  in  Mark  4:2-34.  Mark 
states  in  so  many  words  that  "he  taught  them  many  things 
in  parables,"  evidently  meaning  that  there  were  many  more 
on  this  occasion  besides  those  that  he  records.  After  giving 
several  (the  sower,  the  lamp,  the  seed  growing  of  itself,  the 
grain  of  mustard  seed)  he  adds  this  striking  comment:  "And 
with  many  such  parables  spake  he  the  word  unto  them,  as 
they  were  able  to  hear  it;  and  without  a  parable  spake  he  not 
unto  them."     Matthew  (ch.  13)  records  nine  on  the  same 


THE   PARABLES   OF   JESUS   IN  MARK's   GOSPEL       lOI 

day,  counting  the  lamp  and  the  householder  as  parables  as 
they  manifestly  are.  Mark  does  not  mean  to  say  that  Jesus 
always  confined  himself  to  parables,  but  that  on  this  day 
(the  Busy  Day,  the  day  of  the  Blasphemous  Accusation)  he 
did  so  purposely.  The  disciples  were  greatly  puzzled  over 
the  number  and  the  length  of  these  narrative  parables. 
"And  when  he  was  alone,  they  that  were  about  him  with  the 
twelve  asked  of  him  the  parables."  They  wanted  to  know 
why  he  used  them  and  what  he  meant  by  them.  The  reply 
of  Jesus  shows  that  on  this  day  he  was  employing  parables 
as  a  means  of  concealing  truth  from  those  who  would  treat 
it  as  pearls  cast  before  swine  and  yet  at  the  same  time  as  a 
blessing  for  those  with  eyes  to  see.  ''Unto  you  is  given  the 
mystery  of  the  Kingdom  of  God;  but  unto  them  that  are 
without,  all  things  are  done  in  parables;  that  seeing  they  may 
see,  and  not  perceive;  and  hearing  they  may  hear,  and  not 
understand;  lest  haply  they  should  turn  again,  and  it  should 
be  forgiven  them."  This  is  a  hard  saying  and  sounds  un- 
sympathetic, but  we  must  remember  that  Jesus  has  in  mind 
those  who  had  just  accused  him  of  being  in  league  with  Satan 
and  whom  he  had  denounced  as  guilty  of  the  unpardonable 
sin  in  attributing  to  the  devil  the  manifest  works  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  They  deserved  this  judgment  of  obscurity  for  this 
heinous  sin.  The  parables  thus  used  were  a  pillar  of  light  to 
the  spiritually  minded  and  a  pillar  of  darkness  to  the  ad- 
versaries of  Jesus.  Jesus  wished  people  to  understand  him 
if  they  were  kindly  disposed  toward  him.  So  he  proceeded  to 
explain  the  parable  of  the  sower  with  minute  detail.  "Know 
ye  not  this  parable?  and  how  shall  ye  know  all  the  parables?" 
"But  privately  to  his  own  disciples  he  expounded  all  things." 
Thus  we  see  the  Master  giving  his  disciples  private  inter- 
pretation of  this  aspect  of  his  public  teaching.  They  were  to 
know  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom.  It  was  no  longer  a  hidden 
secret  to  them,  but  a  blessed  secret  that  was  revealed.  "For 
there  is  nothing  hid,  save  that  it  should  be  manifested;  neither 
was  anything  made  secret,  but  that  it  should  come  to  light." 


I02  STUDIES  IN  MARK'S   GOSPEL 

Christ  did  not  change  the  primary  purpose  of  parables  in 
thus  employing  them  as  a  curse  upon  his  obdurate  enemies. 
He  puts  the  lamp  upon  the  lamp-stand,  not  under  the  bushel, 
that  it  may  give  Hght  for  those  with  eyes  to  see.  The  blind 
do  not  see.  The  willfully  deaf  do  not  hear.  ''If  any  man 
hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear."  Jesus  thus  made  direct 
appeal  for  attention  and  pointed  his  words  with  these  arrows 
of  conviction.  He  knew  only  too  well  how  volatile  some  of 
them  were,  how  preoccupied  others  were,  how  hard-hearted 
many  were,  how  few  really  would  let  the  seed  bear  fruit  in 
heart  and  hfe.  Other  teachers  come  after  the  King.  If  Jesus 
found  it  so  difficult  to  win  attention,  to  hold  it,  to  plant  the 
seed  of  truth  where  it  would  find  responsive  soil,  we  need  not 
wonder  at  our  frequent  failures  in  teaching  and  preaching. 
The  very  parables  of  Jesus  that  charmed  so  many  threw 
others  into  utter  confusion  of  thought.  But  Jesus  was  willing 
to  cast  bread  upon  the  water  in  hope  that  it  would  come  back 
after  many  days.  The  stories  of  Jesus  stick  in  the  mind  like 
burrs.  Some  day  the  point  of  the  story  will  be  plain.  He 
knew  that  when  he  told  the  parable.  Evidently  Peter,  like 
the  rest,  was  greatly  impressed  by  the  parables  of  that  Busy 
Day.    They  stirred  the  disciples  to  talk  and  to  learn. 

Moulton  ^  says  that  only  narrative  parable  required  ex- 
planation, for  simihtudes  and  illustrative  instances  carried 
their  own  meaning.  So  they  did,  but  the  hearers  by  no  means 
always  saw  it.  The  parable  of  the  sower  is  really  allegory, 
while  that  of  the  seed  growing  of  itseK  is  simihtude. 

4.  Difficulty  in  Understanding  Christ's  Parables. — ^Jesus 
was  a  prophet  and  so  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  call  the  proverb 
in  Mark  6:#4  a  parable:  "A  prophet  is  not  without  honor, 
save  in  his  own  country,  and  among  his  own  kin,  and  in  his 
own  house."  It  is  a  paraboHc  proverb  like  that  in  Luke 
6:39  which  is  called  a  parable:  ''Can  the  blind  guide  the 
blind?"  The  dullness  of  the  disciples  in  comprehending 
some  of  the  simplest  parables  of  Jesus  is  due  to  their  theolog- 
1 "  Parable,"  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  Christ  atid  the  Gospels, 


THE  PARABLES  OF  JESUS  IN  MARK's   GOSPEL      103 

ical  prepossessions.  Their  Pharisaic  environment  colored 
their  vision  so  that  it  was  hard  for  them  to  see  the  obvious 
(to  us)  spiritual  truth.  In  the  clash  with  the  Pharisees  over 
the  tradition  of  washing  the  hands  for  ceremonial  purity 
Jesus  says:  ''Hear  me  all  of  you,  and  understand:  there  is 
nothing  from  without  the  man,  that  going  into  him  can  defile 
him;  but  the  things  which  proceed  out  of  the  man  are  those 
that  defile  the  man."  (Mark  7:15).  Then  Jesus  made  a 
special  plea  for  attention  and  the  parable  is  so  very  obvious 
that  we  almost  fail  to  see  the  paraboHc  form.  And  yet  "when 
he  was  entered  into  the  house  from  the  multitude,  his  dis- 
ciples asked  of  him  the  parable  "  (Mark  7:17).  They  actually 
could  not  see  the  inevitable  implication  of  Christ's  teaching 
concerning  the  uselessness  of  the  Pharisaic  rites.  Matthew 
(15:12)  reports  that  the  disciples  said:  ''Knowest  thou  that 
the  Pharisees  were  offended,  when  they  heard  this  saying?  " 
The  disciples  evidently  felt  that  Jesus  had  gone  too  far  in  his 
criticism  of  the  Pharisees  and  they  did  not  know  precisely 
where  they  stood  themselves.  One  has  only  to  recall  Peter's 
difficulty  later  in  Joppa  in  understanding  the  vision  on  the 
house-top  when  he  refused  the  Lord's  invitation  to  rise,  slay, 
and  eat.  "Not  so,  Lord;  for  I  have  never  eaten  anything 
that  is  common  or  unclean"  (Acts  10:14).  That  was  after 
the  bestowal  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost.  Then  in  this 
incident  in  the  Gospels,  ''Peter  answered  and  said  unto  him, 
Declare  unto  us  this  parable"  (Matt.  15:15).  Peter  spoke 
for  all  of  them  who  realized  that  they  could  not  go  with  Jesus 
in  his  breach  with  Pharisaism  on  this  point,  if  they  understood 
his  parable.  So  they  begged  for  further  light.  Jesus  sharply 
upbraids  their  dullness:  "Are  ye  also  without  understanding? 
Perceive  ye  not,  that  whatsoever  goeth  into  the  man,  it  can- 
not defile  him;  because  it  goeth  not  into  his  heart,  but  into 
his  belly,  and  goeth  out  into  the  draught?"  (Mark  7:18). 
Mark  does  not  give  the  reply  of  the  disciples,  if  they  made 
any,  which  is  hardly  likely.  As  we  have  seen,  Peter  did  not 
see  the  bearing  of  this  parable  till  his  experience  at  Joppa 


I04 

and  Caesarea  (Acts  lo).  But  Mark  breaks  right  into  the 
explanation  of  Jesus  (7:18-23)  by  a  sharp  anacoluthon  at 
the  close  of  verse  19,  "making  all  meats  clean."  This  is 
probably  due  to  a  side  remark  of  Peter  as  he  recounted  the 
incident  and  to  Mark's  preservation  of  this  touch  of  hfe. 
Peter's  explanatory  comment  reflects  the  new  light  on  this 
parable  that  he  obtained  at  Joppa.  Bugge  ^  calls  this  more 
paradox  than  parable,  but  parable  has  a  very  flexible  use. 

In  the  intellectual  passage  of  arms  between  Jesus  and  the 
Syrophoenician  woman  (Mark  7:25-30)  Jesus  said:  "Let  the 
children  first  be  filled,  for  it  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's 
bread  and  cast  it  to  the  dogs."  This  proverb  might  have 
cut  the  woman  to  the  quick,  Greek  as  she  was.  But,  instead 
of  flying  off  the  handle  at  the  apparent  rebuff,  with  nimble 
wit  she  caught  up  the  parable  of  Jesus  and  gave  it  a  deft  turn 
to  her  own  advantage:  "Yea,  Lord;  even  the  dogs  (the  httle 
dogs,  literally)  under  the  table  eat  of  the  children's  crumbs." 
It  was  bright  and  it  was  true  and  she  scored  by  her  neat  and 
complete  answer.  Jesus  said  in  reply:  "For  this  saying  go 
thy  way;  the  demon  is  gone  out  of  thy  daughter."  Jesus 
rewarded  her  bright  faith.  Is  it  irreverent  to  imagine  a  merry 
twinkle  in  the  eyes  of  Jesus  as  the  woman  showed  her  grat- 
itude and  joy?  Humor  and  pathos  He  close  together  as  this 
incident  shows.  The  woman's  courage  carried  her  through 
and  she  took  Christ  at  his  word  and  went  home  to  her  daugh- 
ter. In  the  presence  of  so  much  stupidity  in  spiritual  things 
Jesus  seemed  to  find  positive  delight  in  the  quick  wit  of  this 
Greek  woman. 

Quite  otherwise  was  the  dreary  dullness  of  the  disciples 
concerning  "the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  leaven  of 
Herod"  (Mark  8:15).  The  hteralness  of  the  disciples  in 
trying  to  apply  the  warning  of  the  master  is  absolutely  jejune 
when  "they  reasoned  one  with  another,  saying,  we  have  no 
bread."  They  thought  the  warning  against  the  kind  of  bread 
used  by  the  Pharisees  and  Herod  needless  because  they  had 
^  Die  Hauplparahchi  Jcsu,  1903. 


THE   PARABLES   OF   JESUS   IN  MARK'S   GOSPEL       105 

no  bread  at  all.  To  be  sure  the  disciples  were  not  always  so 
dull  as  this,  else  they  would  have  been  hopeless  pupils.  The 
best  of  us  are  duller  at  times  than  is  usual  for  us.  But  the 
incapacity  of  the  disciples  on  this  occasion  greatly  disap- 
pointed Jesus.  His  sharp  questions  are  more  than  justified 
by  their  slowness  to  grasp  this  simple  parable.  ^' Why  reason 
ye,  because  ye  have  no  bread?  Do  ye  not  yet  perceive, 
neither  understand?  Have  ye  your  heart  hardened?  Having 
eyes,  see  ye  not?  and  having  ears,  hear  ye  not?  And  do  ye 
not  remember?"  (Mark  8:17/.)  Then  Jesus  reminds  them 
of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  and  of  the  four  thousand, 
acted  parables  as  these  miracles  were.  Once  more  the  Master 
asks:  ^'Do  ye  not  yet  understand?"  (8:21).  There  Mark 
leaves  the  incident,  striking  testimony  to  the  fideUty  of  Peter 
in  reporting  his  own  obtuseness.  Matthew,  however,  states 
that,  after  Christ's  repeated  questions,  "then  they  under- 
stood how  that  he  bade  them  not  beware  of  the  leaven  of 
bread,  but  of  the  teaching  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees." 
(Matt.  16:12).  Jesus  was  the  most  patient  of  teachers  and 
had  given  the  disciples  parable  upon  parable.  They  were 
without  excuse  and  without  resource,  though  at  last  they  saw 
the  point.  The  true  teacher  will  keep  at  it  till  he  makes 
the  dull  ones  see  what  he  means.  The  parable  is  designed 
to  turn  on  the  light,  but  here  light  had  to  be  thrust  on  the 
parable. 

5.  Pointedness  of  Chris fs  Parables. — Is  it  not  a  parable 
when  Jesus  rebukes  Peter  by  saying:  ''Get  thee  behind  me, 
Satan;  for  thou  mindest  not  the  things  of  God,  but  the 
things  of  men"  (Mark  8:33)?  Certainly  this  sudden  and 
sharp  epithet  shocked  Peter  and  the  others  and  ought  to 
have  opened  their  eyes  to  the  real  meaning  of  Jesus  con- 
cerning his  death.  It  is  worth  noting  that,  if  Mark  obtained 
the  account  of  this  incident  from  Peter,  Peter  did  not  re- 
frain from  showing  how  he  had  distressed  the  heart  of  Christ. 

Mark  speaks  of  a  group  of  parables  in  12:1:  *'And  he 
began  to  speak  unto  them  in  parables."    He  gives,  however, 


lo6  STUDIES  IN  mark's  GOSPEL 

only  one,  that  of  the  householder  who  let  his  vineyard  out 
to  husbandmen  who  abused  their  trust  and  finally  killed  the 
householder's  son.  By  this  parable  Jesus  portrayed  the 
treatment  that  he  was  receiving  at  the  hands  of  the  Jews. 
It  is  part  of  his  defense  to  the  Sanhedrin  when  they  attack 
him  in  the  Temple  on  the  last  day  of  his  public  ministry. 
There  is  a  threat  in  the  application  of  the  parable  concerning 
God's  judgment  on  the  Jews  for  their  mistreatment  of  his 
Son.  *'What  therefore  will  the  lord  of  the  vineyard  do?'* 
(12:9).  *'He  will  come  and  destroy  the  husbandman  and 
give  the  vineyard  to  others."  The  Jewish  leaders  saw  the 
point  of  this  parable  which  went  home  like  a  sure  arrow. 
"  And  they  sought  to  lay  hold  on  him;  and  they  feared  the 
multitude;  for  they  perceived  that  he  spake  the  parable 
against  them;  and  they  left  him  and  went  away"  (12:12). 
The  anger,  fear,  and  vacillation  of  the  Sanhedrin  come  out 
finely  in  this  summary  by  Mark.  Matthew  narrates  two 
other  parables  on  this  same  occasion,  that  of  the  two  sons 
and  that  of  the  marriage  feast  and  the  wedding  garment. 
They  helped  to  cHnch  the  point  of  the  fate  of  the  Jews  for 
rejecting  the  Son  of  God  and  slaying  him. 

Once  more  in  Mark  13:28  we  find  a  parable.  "  Now  from 
the  fig  tree  learn  her  parable."  Jesus  uses  the  tender  branches 
of  the  fig  tree  as  the  sign  of  summer.  There  the  disciples 
were  to  watch  for  the  signs  of  the  coming  doom  of  Jersualem 
and  also  for  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man  at  the  end.  It  is 
possible  that  in  verses  30  and  3 1  Christ  refers  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem:  "This  generation  shall  not  pass  away  till 
all  these  things  be  accomplished."  In  verse  32  we  may  have 
the  further  and  more  remote  event  of  his  second  coming: 
*'  But  of  that  day  or  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the 
angels  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father."  In  this 
interpretation  Jesus  is  not  contradicting  himself,  but  has  in 
mind  two  events,  one  a  symbol  of  the  other.  If  this  view  is 
correct,  the  new  paragraph  should  begin  with  verse  32.  So 
the  Master  proceeds:  ''  Take  ye  heed,  watch  and  pray;  for 


THE  PARABLES   OE  JESUS  IN  MARK's   GOSPEL      107 

ye  know  not  when  the  time  is"  (13:33).  Then  Christ  gives 
the  parable  of  the  porter  and  the  other  servants  to  illustrate 
the  great  need  for  watching  for  his  coming  (Mark  13:34-37). 
The  master  of  the  house  in  his  absence  gave  each  servant 
his  task  and  commanded  the  porter  also  to  watch  for  his 
coming.  The  sudden  return  of  the  lord  of  the  house  would 
be  very  embarrassing  if  all  the  servants  were  sleeping.  Alas, 
how  dull  we  have  all  become  and  how  little  we  really  "  watch  " 
for  the  Lord's  coming. 

Shall  we  call  the  use  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine  for  the  blood 
of  Christ  and  the  bread  for  his  body  a  parable?  When  Jesus 
said:  "  This  is  my  body"  and  "  This  is  my  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant, which  is  poured  out  for  many"  (Mark  14:22,  24),  he 
was  not  using  language  literally  as  the  Roman  Catholics 
hold.  It  is  a  figurative  and  symbohc  use  and  can  be  properly 
termed  a  parable. 

6.  Summary. — We  may  now  gather  up  the  facts  in  Mark's 
report  of  Christ's  parables.  There  are  twenty-two  in  the 
list  above,  but  that  is  giving  a  generous  latitude  to  the  use 
of  the  word.  Several  are  barely  more  than  metaphors.  A 
number  are  proverbs.  Most  of  them  are  very  brief.  In 
fact,  there  are  only  two  of  any  length,  the  sower  in  chapter  4 
and  the  householder  and  the  vineyard  in  chapter  12.  This  is 
quite  in  contrast  to  Luke  and  Matthew  which  have  a  number 
of  parables  of  considerable  length  (Luke  14,  15,  16,  18  and 
Matthew  13,  21,  22,  25).  The  parables  of  Jesus  are  given 
all  the  way  from  27  to  59.  Mark  has  few  of  the  great  king- 
dom parables  found  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  though  one  of 
them,  the  seed  growing  of  itself,  occurs  only  in  Mark.  In 
Mark  the  parables  of  Jesus  are  like  momentary  flash-lights,  a 
sort  of  touch-and-go  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  He  used  para- 
bles "  as  they  were  able  to  hear  it"  (4:33).  And  yet  Mark 
several  times  alludes  to  the  great  number  of  Christ's  parables. 
The  great  majority  of  his  parables  were  probably  like  those  in 
Mark,  vivid  and  sharp.  The  great  number  of  them  seemed 
like  the  constant  play  of  Ughtning  in  the  storm  and  darkness. 


CHAPTER  IX 

TBE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS  IN  MARK's   GOSPEL  ^ 

"And  they  were  all  amazed,  insomuch  that  they  questioned  among 
themselves  saying,  What  is  this?  a  new  teaching!"    Mark  1:27. 

I.  The  Objectivity  of  Mark. — We  do  not  usually  look  to 
Mark's  Gospel  for  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  but  rather  to  Mat- 
thew, Luke,  and  John.  In  fact  it  is  now  almost  a  common- 
place in  New  Testament  criticism  that  Mark  and  Q  (the 
Logia  of  Jesus)  are  the  two  main  sources  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  Bacon  is  quite  sure  that  the  canonical  Mark  is  em- 
bellished at  points  by  the  use  of  Q.^ 

However  that  may  be,  there  is  an  undoubted  contrast 
between  the  objectivity  of  Mark's  narrative  and  the  dis- 
courses in  the  other  Gospels. 

Neither  Matthew  nor  Luke  considers  his  task  performed 
without  embodying  the  substance  of  the  sayings  or  teaching 
of  the  Lord.  Matthew  in  particular  regards  it  as  the  very 
essence  of  an  evangehst's  duty  to  "  teach  men  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  Jesus  had  commanded."  Mark  cer- 
tainly was  not  ignorant  of  such  teaching  or  commandments 
of  the  Lord,  even  if  we  refuse  his  acquaintance  with  the 
particular  document  employed  by  Matthew  and  Luke. 
And  yet  he  leaves  his  readers  completely  without  informa- 
tion on  the  law  of  Jesus.^ 

We  may  admit  that  Mark  was  familiar  with  Q.  He  avoided 
using  Q  because  that  was  already  in  use  precisely  as  the 

»  The  Biblical  World  (Chicago),  July,  1918. 

2  Bacon,  The  Beginnings  of  the  Gospel  Story,  1909,  p.  xxi. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  xxvii. 

108 


•V 


THE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS  IN  MARK's   GOSPEL      109 

Fourth  Gospel  mainly  supplements  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
Stanton  ^  and  Moffatt  ^  deny  that  Mark  made  any  use  of 
Q.  "  Peter's  teaching  may  have  contained  nearly  all  the 
sayings  of  Christ  which  are  reported  by  Mark."  ^  Swete 
says  that  "  St.  Mark  does  not  write  with  a  dogmatic  pur- 
pose." ^  Similarly  Salmond  says:  "  One  of  the  most  marked 
characteristics  is  the  simple  objectivity  of  the  narrative. 
It  is  not  the  product  of  reflection,  nor  does  it  give  things 
colored  by  the  writer's  own  ideas.  It  has  been  called  a 
'transcript  from  life'  (Westcott)."  And  yet  it  will  not  do 
to  say  that  Mark  had  no  purpose  and  no  plan  in  his  Gospel. 
Bacon  sees  it  and  says:  "His  effort  is  simply  to  produce 
behef  in  his  person  as  Son  of  God."  ^  Pfleiderer  admits  "  a 
comparatively  clearer  and  more  naive  presentation  of  tra- 
dition" and  "an  earlier  stage  of  apologetic  authorship,"^ 
but  he  insists  "  that  even  this  oldest  Gospel  writer  is  guided 
by  a  decided  apologetic  purpose  in  the  selection  and  mani- 
festation of  material."  ^  Gould  ^  notes  that  in  Mark's  Gos- 
pel, Jesus  is  presented  as  a  herald  of  the  kingdom,  then  as 
a  teacher  with  the  note  of  authority,  then  as  a  prophet,  then 
as  a  miracle  worker,  the  Son  of  man,  and  finally  as  the  Mes- 
siah, the  Son  of  God.  "Now  Mark's  method  begins  to 
appear.  Jesus  does  not  lay  down  a  programme  of  the  Mes- 
sianic Kingdom  in  a  set  discourse,  but  the  principles  regu- 
lating his  activity  are  slowly  evolved  by  the  occasions  of  his 
life."  Gould  is  undoubtedly  correct  in  this  view  of  Mark's 
plan  in  his  Gospel.  Mark's  Gospel  proves  the  deity  of  Jesus 
mainly  by  the  force  of  the  work  which  he  did.  "But  it  is 
evident  that  Mark  has  grouped  his  material  for  a  purpose. 

^  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  II,  1909,  109-14. 

2  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  191 1,  pp.  204-6. 

3  piummer,  "St.  Mark,"  Cambridge  Bible  Jar  Schools,  1914,  p.  xxi. 
^  Commentary,  1898,  p.  Ixxxviii. 

5  "Gospel  of  Mark"  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  p.  xxvii. 

^  Christian  Origins,  transl.,  1906,  p.  217. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  219. 

8  International  Critical  Commentary,  1896,  pp.  xLx-xx. 


no  STUDIES  IN  mark's  GOSPEL 

He  wishes  to  show  how,  with  one  occasion  after  another,  the 
teaching  of  our  Lord  acquired  substance  and  shape  and 
encountered  a  sharp  and  well-defined  opposition."  ^ 

2.  A  Minimum  of  Teaching. — There  is  in  Mark  a  minimum 
of  teaching  by  Christ,  but  the  teaching  is  present  and  is 
worth  our  study.  Jesus  is  repeatedly  called  "teacher"  (4:38; 
5:35;  9:17,  s^}  12:14;  13:1).  Bacon  thinks  that  in  Mark 
8:27-10:52  *'here  at  last  we  do  find  our  evangehst  giving 
the  content  of  Jesus'  message.  .  .  .  This  Division  of  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Cross  is  Mark's  Sermon  on  the  Mount."  ^ 
He  attributes  this  portion  to  Paul's  influence  on  Mark: 
*'The  PauHnism  of  Mark  is  supremely  manifest  in  this 
evangeUst's  whole  conception  of  what  constitutes  the  apos- 
toHc  message."  ^  Pfleiderer  had  already  taken  the  same  posi- 
tion and  charges  Mark  with  inventing  these  "PauHne'* 
speeches  and  attributing  them  to  Jesus.  "The  pupil  of  Paul 
is  most  evident  in  the  speeches,  which  the  evangelist  did  not 
find  in  his  source-book  or  in  the  Palestinian  tradition,  but 
created  independently  and  for  the  first  time  fitted  into  the 
traditional  material  as  the  leading  religious  motives  for  the 
judgment  of  the  history  of  Jesus."  ^  Indeed  Pfleiderer 
pointedly  charges  Mark  with  being  partly  responsible  for 
theologizing  the  Jesus  of  history  into  the  Christ  of  Paul. 
"Such  a  man  might  well  have  been  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
which  unites  the  Jesus  of  the  Palestinian  tradition,  the  ener- 
getic hero  of  a  Jewish  reform  movement,  with  the  Christ 
of  the  Pauline  theology,  the  suffering  hero  of  a  mystical  world- 
salvation,  and  thus  paved  the  way  which  was  finished  two 
generations  later  in  the  Gospel  of  John."  ^  It  is  quite  to  the 
point,  therefore,  since  a  purpose  like  that  is  attributed  to 
Mark,  to  see  what  he  really  does  represent  Jesus  as  teaching. 

3.  The  Method  of  Mark. — The  headline  properly  describes 

*  International  Critical  Commentary,  1896,  p.  xxii. 
2  Beginnings  of  Gospel  Story,  pp.  xxvii/. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  xxviii. 

*  Christian  Origins,  p.  220.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  222. 


THE  TEACHING   OF  JESUS  IN  MARK's   GOSPEL      III 

the  book.  It  is  "the  Beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God."  But  it  is  the  method  of  Jesus  with  which 
we  are  here  concerned,  not  that  of  the  Gospel.  "We  must 
pause  again  to  notice  Mark's  method,  and  to  say  now  that  it 
bears  all  the  appearance  of  being  the  method  of  Jesus  himself. 
He  meets  questions  as  they  arise,  instead  of  projecting  dis- 
course from  himself.  But  the  wisdom  and  com.pleteness  of  his 
answer  anticipate  the  controversies  of  Christendom."  ^  This 
is  the  method  of  Jesus  in  his  teaching.  He  seized  the  occa- 
sions as  they  came  to  proclaim  the  message  of  the  kingdom, 
now  on  this  point,  now  on  that,  "It  is  their  opportunity, 
but  then  it  is  Jesus'  opportunity  too.  It  gives  him  his  chance 
to  strike  at  traditionahsm  and  ceremonialism,  the  two  foes 
of  spiritual  religion."  ^  But  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  coherent 
and  consistent  in  spite  of  its  incidental  occasion  and  apho- 
ristic form.  One  has  only  to  think  of  Socrates  as  reported  by 
Plato  and  Xenophon  to  see  how  this  can  be  true.  Let  us  then 
turn  to  the  sayings  of  Jesus  in  Mark  and  see  what  they  teach 
us. 

4.  Logia  of  Jesus. — The  first  logion  of  Jesus  is  in  1:15  and 
reminds  us  of  the  message  of  the  Baptist  in  i  :i4.  Like  John, 
the  Master  announced  the  fullness  of  the  time  and  the  near- 
ness of  the  Kingdom  of  God.  We  are  not  told  what  the  word 
"kingdom"  means  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  but  the  event  shows 
that  Jesus  conceived  it  to  be  a  spiritual  reign  in  men's  hearts, 
not  the  political  rule  looked  for  by  the  Pharisees.  The  duty 
of  repentance  was  urged,  a  turning  of  the  heart  and  life  to 
God.  Faith  in  the  gospel  was  commended.  Jesus  had  a 
definite  message  (the  gospel)  or  good  news,  and  he  expected 
men  to  believe  it.  This  saying  of  Jesus  is  the  theme  of  the 
Galilean  ministry.^ 

The  next  logion  of  Jesus  is  in  1:17.  It  is  the  call  to  Simon 
and  Andrew  to  follow  Jesus  permanently,  with  the  promise 

^  Gould,  "Mark,"  International  Critical  Commentary,  p.  xxv. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  xxiv. 

^  Cf.  Bruce,  The  Galilean  Gospel. 


112  STUDIES  IN  MARKS   GOSPEL 

of  making  them  "  fishers  of  men,"  the  only  really  "  big  busi- 
ness" in  the  world.  The  call  caught  the  hearts  of  these  two 
enterprising  laymen  and  also  won  James  and  John,  who  left 
their  business  to  go  into  the  bigger  task  of  winning  men  to 
Christ.  The  message  of  Jesus  thus  has  point  and  force.  It 
is  pubHc  and  personal.  Jesus  won  these  four  followers  by 
direct  personal  appeal.  He  claimed  them  and  they  ac- 
knowledged his  authority.    He  drafted  them  for  service. 

The  next  logion  is  in  1:25  to  the  demon  which  Jesus  com- 
manded to  come  out  of  the  poor  man.  Jesus  here  recognized 
the  reahty  of  demon  possession  and  exercised  his  power  over 
the  evil  spirit.  The  demon  had  addressed  Jesus  as  "  the  Holy 
One  of  God,"  but  Jesus  commanded  him  to  be  silent,  not 
wishing  testimony  from  such  a  source.  The  demoniacs 
seemed  to  know  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God  and  loudly 
proclaimed  it  icf.  5:7/.). 

The  next  saying  is  in  1:38  and  concerns  the  purpose  of 
Jesus  to  leave  the  crowds  in  Capernaum  and  push  on  to  the 
next  towns.  Only  one  more  incident  comes  in  chapter  i, 
the  healing  of  the  leper,  to  whose  pitiful  appeal  Jesus  said,  "  I 
will;  be  thou  made  clean"  (1:41),  and  then  told  the  man  to 
go  and  show  himself  to  the  priest  (1:44).  But  these  logia 
reveal  Jesus  as  Lord  and  Master  of  men,  as  Teacher  and 
Prophet,  whose  words  and  deeds  had  set  Galilee  ablaze. 

5.  Making  a  Point  of  the  Teaching. — In  chapter  2  the  teach- 
ing is  more  prominent.  In  fact,  Jesus  forgave  the  sins  of  the 
paralytic  before  he  healed  him,  and,  when  challenged,  as- 
serted his  power  to  forgive  sins  and  his  consequent  equahty 
with  God  and  proceeded  to  heal  the  man  in  order  to  prove 
that  he  possessed  the  right  to  forgive  sins  (2:5-11).  This  in- 
cident illustrates  well  how  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  Mark's 
Gospel  is  associated  with  the  actual  events.  The  profoundest 
sayings  of  Christ  burst  forth  spontaneously  out  of  the  every- 
day work.  Here  Jesus  revealed  a  consciousness  of  his  equality 
with  God  quite  Johannine  in  tone,  and  that  was  considered 
blasphemy  by  the  scribes  present.    The  use  of  the  phrase 


THE   TEACHING   OF   JESUS   IN  MARK'S   GOSPEL      II3 

^'  the  Son  of  man"  is  also  characteristic.  It  is  messianic  in 
fact  without  giving  his  enemies  a  technical  ground  for  arrest- 
ing him.  It  also  puts  Jesus,  though  the  Son  of  God,  as  the 
Father  called  him  and  as  the  demon  understood  (1:24;  5:7), 
on  a  level  with  men  in  sympathy  and  love  as  their  represen- 
tative and  ideal. 

In  2:17  we  have  one  of  the  crisp  parables  of  Jesus  that 
throw  a  flood  of  light  on  himself  and  his  enemies.  The  Phari- 
sees posed  as  righteous  and  called  other  men  sinners,  as  we 
know  from  the  Psalms  of  the  Pharisees.  "Righteous"  and 
"sinners"  are  here  then  class  distinctions.  Jesus  does  not 
mean  to  admit  that  the  Pharisees  are  really  righteous,  but 
only  that  their  claim  to  that  class  reflects  their  complaint 
at  him  for  preaching  to,  and  eating  with,  the  publicans  and 
sinners.  It  is  a  neat  turn  of  unanswerable  wit  and  is  a  com- 
plete justification  for  Christianity's  mission  to  the  so-called 
sinful  classes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Pharisaic  pride  (cf.  Matt., 
chap.  6)  is  one  of  the  worst  and  most  hopeless  of  sins. 

In  2:19-22  Jesus  is  again  on  the  defensive  and  justifies 
the  conduct  of  his  disciples  in  abstaining  from  one  of  the 
stated  fasts  which  the  disciples  of  John  and  the  Pharisees 
were  observing  (2:  18).  The  three  parables  (the  Bridegroom, 
the  Undressed  Cloth,  the  Wine-skins)  all  show  how  radically 
Christianity  differs  from  current  Judaism  (the  Pharisaic 
orthodoxy).  Jesus  makes  it  plain  that  Christianity  has  burst 
the  swaddling-clothes  of  Jewish  ceremonialism  and  can  never 
again  be  put  back  into  such  bonds.  And  yet  various  types 
of  Christianity  have  tried  to  put  clamps  upon  the  life  of  the 
spiritual  man.  Jesus  here  attacks  sacramentarianism  as  a 
system,  while  commending  fasting  when  it  is  the  natural 
expression  of  real  grief,  and  not  mere  custom  or  display. 
Jesus  also  reveals  foreknowledge  of  his  approaching  death 
and  shows  a  messianic  consciousness,  caUing  himself  "  the 
bridegroom." 

Few  things  irritated  the  Pharisees  more  than  Christ's 
failure  to  observe  their  rules  for  sabbath  observance.    His 


114  STUDIES  IN  mark's  GOSPEL 

defense  against  their  attack  made  them  more  angry  than 
ever  by  reason  of  his  claim  of  superiority  to  these  rules  and 
even  to  the  day  itself  as  the  Son  of  man.  Indeed  he  asserted 
that  the  day  was  for  man's  blessing,  not  for  his  injury 
(2:25-28).  Jesus  challenged  the  Pharisaic  punctihousness 
concerning  the  sabbath  as  slavery  to  the  letter  and  a  refusal 
to  do  good  and  wilUngness  to  let  men  die  on  that  day  (3:1). 
This  attitude  of  Jesus  widened  the  breach  between  him  and 
the  Pharisees  and  healed  that  between  them  and  the  Hero- 
dians,  who  joined  hands  plotting  his  death  (3  :^f.). 

In  3:22-30  Jesus  not  only  defends  himseK  against  the 
charge  of  being  in  league  with  the  devil  by  a  series  of  brief 
parables,  but  also  attacks  the  Pharisees  with  tremendous 
force  and  shows  that  they  are  guilty  of  an  eternal  sin  which 
has  no  forgiveness,  since  they  attribute  to  the  devil  the  mani- 
fest work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Jesus  here  denies  universal 
salvation  and  proclaims  eternal  punishment  for  some.  In 
sharp  contrast  with  this  incident  note  the  beautiful  words  of 
Jesus  in  3:34/.,  when  he  finds  his  mother  and  his  brethren 
among  those  who  do  the  will  of  God.  This  he  said  at  the 
time  when  his  own  family  supposed  that  he  was  beside  him- 
self and  had  come  to  take  him  home. 

Chapter  4  is  the  parable  chapter  in  Mark.  We  have  only  a 
few  specimens  of  the  many  parables  spoken  on  that  day 
(4:2,  10,  33/.).  The  parable  of  the  Sower  is  given  and  ex- 
plained by  Jesus  and  shows  the  variety  of  hearers  who  hear 
the  word  that  is  spoken,  as  every  preacher  finds  out  to  his 
sorrow.  The  place  for  the  lamp  is  on  the  stand  so  as  to  give 
light.  How  careless  men  are  with  their  opportunities.  The 
mysterious  growth  of  the  kingdom  in  the  heart  is  illustrated 
by  the  story  of  the  seed  growing  of  itself.  The  expanding 
power  of  the  kingdom  is  shown  by  the  mustard  seed's  de- 
velopment. 

And  yet  with  all  the  care  in  Christ's  teaching  the  disciples 
were  still  fearful  and  timid  in  their  faith  when  caught  in  the 
storm.    The  power  of  Christ  over  wind  and  wave  amazed 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  IN  MARK's   GOSPEL      I15 

them  (4:41),  and  shows  that  only  gradually  were  they  grasp- 
ing the  truth  about  Christ's  person  and  mission.  In  5:19 
Jesus  told  the  former  demoniac  to  go  home  and  tell  his 
friends  what  great  things  God  had  done  for  him,  whereas 
he  told  the  leper  not  to  tell  (1:44).  But  this  was  in  Gentile 
territory  where  there  was  no  danger  of  undue  excitement, 
especially  as  Jesus  was  leaving  the  region.  In  Nazareth, 
Jesus  revealed  the  fact  that  he  knew  how  unable  the  people 
in  his  home  town  were  to  appreciate  him  at  his  real  worth 
(6:4).  The  directions  that  Jesus  gave  the  Twelve  for  the 
Galilean  tour  were  particular  and  special  and  not  meant  to 
apply  to  all  mission  campaigns  (6:8-11). 

The  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  was  the  occasion  of  much 
teaching  (6  '.2,4) ,  but  Mark  has  not  given  it,  probably  because 
Peter  did  not  tell  it.  However,  the  power  of  Christ  is  revealed 
in  the  miracle  and  in  the  walking  on  the  water.  Jesus  taught 
the  disciples  how  to  face  great  problems  and  to  be  of  cheer 
in  time  of  stress  and  strain. 

6.  A  Revolutionary  Discourse.^-ChdipteY  7  gives  one  of  the 
revolutionary  discourses  of  Jesus  when  he  accused  the  Phar- 
isees of  preferring  tradition  to  truth  and  twitted  them  with 
their  hypocritical  practice  of  "Corban."  The  doctrine  that, 
not  ceremonial  contaminations,  but  only  the  sinful  thoughts 
of  the  heart  really  defile  a  man  astonished  even  the  disciples 
so  much  that  they  interviewed  Jesus  privately  about  it. 
Peter's  amazement  lasted  till  his  experience  on  the  housetop 
at  Joppa  (Acts,  ch.  10),  and  Mark  notes  what  Jesus  said  to 
the  disciples  "making  all  meats  clean"  (Mark  7:19).  In  7 127 
Jesus  proclaims  to  the  Syrophoenician  woman  the  doctrine 
that  the  gospel  comes  to  the  Jew  first.  He  tests  her  and  then 
grants  her  request.  Jesus  knew  that  he  was  to  be  the  Saviour 
of  the  world,  but  the  chosen  people  had  the  first  privilege. 

In  8 12/.  Christ  shows  his  pity  for  the  multitudes.  For  three 
days  they  have  been  with  Jesus  listening  to  his  teaching. 
Now  he  desires  to  feed  their  stomachs  as  well  as  their  souls, 
lest  they  faint  on  the  way.    It  is  good  to  use  the  kitchen  as 


ii6 

well  as  the  pulpit,  if  one  does  not  let  the  soup  kitchen  take  the 
place  of  the  gospel.  Christ  first  fed  their  hearts  and  then 
satisfied  their  hunger  out  of  pity.  We  are  prone  to  use  hunger 
as  a  bit  to  entice  men  to  hear  the  gospel. 

7.  Confessing  His  Messiahship. — Jesus  had  much  to  try 
his  spirit.  The  captious  criticism  of  his  enemies  made  Christ 
refuse  to  perform  signs  to  order,  especially  signs  from  heaven 
to  conform  to  their  theological  implications  about  the  messi- 
ahship (8:11/.).  The  dullness  of  the  disciples  distressed 
Jesus  greatly  when  they  took  his  parable  about  the  leaven  of 
the  Pharisees  and  the  leaven  of  Herod  literally  for  actual 
bread  (8:15^.),  an  absolutely  jejune  performance.  Jesus 
took  them  to  task  sharply  for  intellectual  inertness  (8:17-21). 
Every  teacher  has  his  times  of  discouragement  when  it  seems 
useless  to  go  on.  But  better  days  come  to  us  all,  as  they  did 
to  Jesus.  Near  Caesaria  Philippi,  Jesus  tested  his  disciples 
concerning  their  opinion  of  him.  People  had  various  ideas 
of  Jesus  then,  but  Peter  spoke  up  for  the  Twelve  and  said, 
"Thou  art  the  Christ"  (8:29).  Jesus  was  pleased  at  the  con- 
fession, though  he  urged  them  not  to  tell  it  publicly.  John's 
Gospel  shows  that  Jesus  revealed  himself  to  some  as  the 
Messiah  at  the  beginning  of  his  work.  The  pubHc  announce- 
ment of  this  fact,  however,  came  at  the  end  of  his  ministry 
and  helped  to  precipitate  the  crisis,  as  Jesus  foresaw  it  would. 
The  value  of  the  confession  of  the  disciples  *'is  in  the  fact  that 
it  is  not  their  assent  to  his  claim,  but  their  estimate  of  his 
greatness.  They,  as  Jews,  had  inherited  an  idea,  an  expecta- 
tion of  a  man  in  whom  human  greatness  would  culminate.  .  .  . 
The  race  has  culminated  in  him,  and  he  is  therefore  the 
Messiah  whom  we  are  to  expect."  ^ 

8.  Foretelling  His  Death. — Jesus  had  reached  a  crisis  in  his 
work,  and  the  disciples  are  true  to  him  even  after  the  great 
Galilean  defection.  They  are  now  in  a  position  to  be  told 
the  truth  about  the  cross  of  Christ,  his  sacrificial  death  as 
the  Saviour  from  sin.     "  And  he  began  to  teach  them  many 

^  Gould,  "Mark,"  Internatianal  Critical  Commentary ^  p.  xxvi. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JESUS  IN  MARKS   GOSPEL      I17 

things,  and  be  rejected  by  the  elders,  and  the  chief  priests, 
and  the  scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  after  three  days  rise  again  " 
(8:31).  The  time  had  come  "and  he  spake  the  saying  openly." 
A  surgeon  often  probes  deep  enough  to  find  inflammation 
where  all  seemed  to  be  healed  over.  "And  Peter  took  him 
and  began  to  rebuke  him."  Peter  could  not  bear  to  have 
Jesus  interfere  with  his  messianic  theology  by  talking  about 
his  death.  That  to  Peter  spoiled  everything,  absolutely 
everything,  for  he  still  had  the  Pharisaic  notion  of  a  poHtical 
Messiah  and  kingdom.  The  word  of  Jesus  cut  Peter  to  the 
quick:  "Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan;  for  thou  mindest  not  the 
things  of  God,  but  the  things  of  men"  (8:33).  Dazed  as 
Peter  was,  it  is  doubtful  if  he  grasped  clearly  the  profound 
words  of  Jesus  that  followed  concerning  the  philosophy  of 
life  and  death,  of  finding  life  in  death,  and  death  in  fife. 
And  yet  he  treasured  them  in  his  memory  till  he  did  under- 
stand them,  and  Mark  wrote  them  down.  One  may  gain  the 
whole  world  and  forfeit  one's  soul,  like  the  madness  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great,  or  Napoleon,  or  the  Kaiser.  The  Son  of 
man  is  the  judge  of  this  world  and  he  will  be  ashamed  of  those 
who  are  ashamed  of  him  (8:38). 

9.  Eschatology. — The  words  of  Jesus  in  9:1  have  puzzled 
many.  What  does  Jesus  mean  by  those  still  living  who  would 
see  the  Kingdom  of  God  come  with  power?  The  Transfigura- 
tion, his  own  resurrection,  Pentecost,  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  the  second  coming?  Each  view  has  its  difi&- 
culties.  We  have  come  upon  the  eschatology  of  Jesus, 
a  theme  that  bristles  with  difficulties.  Schweitzer  ^  makes 
eschatology  the  chief  thing  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  He 
is  thus  a  mere  apocalyptical  dreamer  with  only  "in- 
terim" ethics  and  no  world-programme.  Sanday  answers 
this  one-sided  view  well  in  his  The  Life  of  Christ  in  Recent 
Research  (1907).  See  further,  Dobschiitz,  The  Eschatology  of 
the  Gospels  (1910);  Muirhead,  The  Eschatology  of  Jesus  (1904); 
Jackson,  The  Eschatology  of  Jesus  (1913);  Oesterley,  The 
*  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus,  19 10,  transl. 


Il8  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

Apocalypse  of  Jesus  (191 2);  Winstanley,  Jesus  and  the  Future 
(1913);  Worsley,  The  Apocalypse  of  Jesus  (191 2).  We  are 
face  to  face  with  the  question  whether  Jesus  had  adopted  the 
cataclysmic  view  of  the  current  Jewish  apocalyptists  and 
expected  a  sudden  demonstration  of  power  that  never  came 
and  a  personal  return  within  that  generation.  In  a  word, 
we  are  asked  to  believe  that  Jesus  was  grievously  mistaken 
in  the  yery  thing  concerning  which  he  claimed  superior  knowl- 
edge, viz.,  the  Kingdom  of  God.  He  did  use  apocalyptic 
imagery,  as  in  chapter  13,  the  so-called  "Little  Apocalypse," 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  in  which  he  foretold 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  finally  the  end  of  the  world. 
The  language  is  symbohc  and  highly  figurative,  but  Jesus  ex- 
pressly disclaims  knowledge  of  the  time  of  the  end  of  the 
world  (13:32),  and  that  makes  us  wonder  if  he  can  have  that 
idea  in  mind  in  9:1  and  in  13:30.  We  have  not  reached  the 
end  of  this  debate,  but  the  eschatological  side  of  Christ's 
teaching  in  the  apocalyptic  form  must  not  be  made  the  major 
thing  in  his  teaching  to  the  neglect  of  the  ethical  and  clearly 
spiritual  notes  which  we  can  understand. 

We  have  no  word  from  Jesus  on  the  Mount  of  Transfigura- 
tion, but  he  manifests  keen  disappointment  at  the  failure  of 
the  disciples  to  cure  the  epileptic  boy  while  he  was  on  the 
mountain  (9:19),  and  tells  the  father  that  faith  is  the  door 
to  all  power  (9:23) — faith  and  prayer  (9:29),  which  the  dis- 
ciples had  omitted,  obvious  explanation  of  much  failure 
to-day  on  the  part  of  workers  for  Christ. 

10.  Practical  Ethics  in  the  Light  of  the  Cross. — ^The  time 
drew  nearer  when  Jesus  must  make  plain  the  fact  of  his 
coming  death  (9:30-32).  Not  only  did  the  disciples  not 
understand  his  teaching  on  this  point,  but  apparently  took 
no  interest  in  it,  for  they  were  bent  on  settling  their  own  rank 
so  as  to  be  ready  for  the  chief  places  in  the  political  kingdom 
which  they  expected  the  Messiah  to  set  up  (9:33-37).  Jesus 
made  service  the  test  of  greatness  and  child-likeness  the  mark 
of  discipleship.    The  rebuke  of  John's  narrowness  is  pertinent 


THE   TEACHING   OF  JESUS  IN  MARK  S   GOSPEL      II9 

to-day  when  men  are  often  overzealous  about  punctilios,  and 
partisanship  overtops  loyalty  to  Christ. 

The  position  of  Christ  on  marriage  and  divorce  is  chal- 
lenged by  many  to-day  as  then.  Easy  divorce  has  always 
been  popular  in  times  of  loose  living.  Mark  (10:5-12)  does 
not  give  the  one  ground  for  divorce  found  in  Matt.  5:32  and 
19:9,  and  Mark  quotes  Christ  as  forbidding  wives  to  divorce 
their  husbands.  Only  Jewish  women  of  prominence  could  do 
that,  women  like  Salome,  Herod's  sister,  and  Herodias. 
Christ's  love  for  little  children  is  shown  by  his  tender  words 
in  10:14^.,  and  his  love  for  a  young  man  in  the  grip  of  a  great 
sin  appears  in  10:21.  Jesus  spoke  plainly  about  the  terrible 
power  of  money  over  men's  lives  (10:23-31).  His  words 
amazed  Peter  and  the  rest,  but  in  these  days  of  war-profiteer- 
ing and  national  land-grabbing  it  is  easy  enough  to  see  the 
point. 

The  plain  prediction  of  the  death  of  Jesus  still  failed  to 
impress  the  disciples,  for  James  and  John  came  right  up  to 
ask  for  the  chief  places  in  the  kingdom.  But  at  least  we  get 
from  the  incident  the  profound  words  of  Jesus  concerning  his 
atoning  death  as  the  crowning  illustration  of  devoted  service 
for  others  (10:32-45),  words  whose  depth  we  still  cannot 
fathom. 

Faith  made  bhnd  Bartimaeus  whole,  Jesus  said  (10:52), 
and  faith  can  remove  mountains  still  (i  i  -.2  3-2  5),  faith  coupled 
with  the  forgiving  spirit.  Jesus  purposely  proclaimed  himself 
Messiah  by  the  triumphal  entry,  and  claimed  messianic 
power  in  cleansing  the  Temple  (11:17).  Nowhere  does  the 
mastery  of  Christ  stand  out  more  clearly  than  in  the  wonder- 
ful debate  on  the  Tuesday  of  Passion  Week,  when  Jesus 
routed  his  enemies  in  a  series  of  attacks  in  the  Temple  (11 :2  7- 
44).  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  Herodians,  Sanhedrin,  and  stu- 
dents, all  went  down  before  the  storm  and  fury  of  Christ's 
withering  words.  The  more  they  winced,  the  more  the  com- 
mon people  rejoiced,  and  Christ  remained  the  master- 
teacher  of  the  Temple,  to  the  rage  of  his  foes. 


120 

The  eschatological  discourse  on  the  Mount  of  OHves 
(ch.  13)  followed  on  that  same  afternoon,  with  its  wondrous 
picture  of  the  woes  impending  upon  Jerusalem  and  the  warn- 
ing against  that  day  of  doom  and  the  remote  judgment  of  the 
world.  The  apocalyptic  language  symbolizes  the  power  of 
Christ,  and  the  pictures  flashed  upon  the  dark  background 
like  the  play  of  lightning  on  the  storm  clouds.  We  falter  as 
we  seek  to  interpret  these  symbols,  but  we  must  not  rob  them 
of  all  pith  and  point. 

II.  The  Sacrificial  Aspect  of  Christ's  Death. — Mary  of 
Bethany  alone  showed  insight  concerning  Christ's  death,  and 
he  defended  her  deed  in  words  of  immortal  sympathy  that 
angered  Judas  and  spurred  him  on  to  make  his  helhsh  com- 
pact with  the  puzzled  ecclesiastics  (14:1-11).  But  Jesus  did 
not  hesitate  to  point  out  the  betrayer  during  the  last  Pass- 
over meal,  though  the  rest  seem  not  to  have  grasped  the  sig- 
nal (14:12-21).  The  words  of  Christ  in  the  institution  of  the 
Supper  plainly  show  that  Christ  was  conscious  of  the  sacri- 
ficial aspect  of  his  atoning  death  for  the  sins  of  men  (14:22-25). 
The  warning  to  Peter  brought  only  boasting  (14:27-31)  and 
the  privilege  of  watching  with  Christ  in  his  agony  in  the 
garden  found  the  chosen  three  inert  in  body  and  unable  to 
keep  awake  while  the  Son  of  man  writhed  on  the  ground  with 
the  load  of  the  sins  of  mankind.  The  cry  for  help  to  the 
Father  was  wrung  from  the  broken,  but  not  rebellious,  heart 
of  God's  Son,  who  submitted  wholly  to  the  Father's  will 
(14:32-40).  Jesus  meets  his  betrayal,  arrest,  trial,  and  cruci- 
fixion with  an  air  of  innocence  and  of  triumph  (14:41-15:37). 
He  is  fully  aware  that  he  has  voluntarily  surrendered  his  life 
for  the  life  of  men,  and  his  courage  to  the  end  is  not  really 
marred  by  the  cry  of  loneliness  after  three  hours  of  darkness, 
when  he  felt  so  keenly  that  the  Father  had  withdrawn  for  the 
moment  his  conscious  presence  (15 :34).  Jesus  on  oath  before 
the  Sanhedrin  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God 
(14:61/.),  but  he  also  claimed  that,  though  they  killed  him,  he 
would  come  in  glory  on  the  clouds  and  judge  the  whole  earth. 


THE   TEACHING   OF  JESUS  IN  MARK's    GOSPEL      121 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that,  while  Mark's  Gospel  does  give 
only  occasional  sayings  of  Christ  in  connection  with  the  his- 
torical occasions  that  called  them  forth,  it  in  no  wise  gives 
a  "reduced"  Christianity.  These  extracts  have  the  same 
flavor  that  we  find  in  Matthew,  Luke,  John,  and  Paul.  The 
"samples"  prove  the  quality  of  the  whole.  The  teaching  of 
Jesus  in  Mark's  Gospel  is  clear  and  consistent  concerning  the 
Father,  the  Son,  sin,  salvation,  the  kingdom,  and  the  moral 
regeneration  of  men. 


CHAPTER  X 

ARAMAIC  AND  LATIN   TERMS   IN  MARK'S  GOSPEL  ^ 
"Abba,  Father."    Mark  14:36. 

1.  Mark's  Habit  as  Interpreter. — The  presence  of  Aramaic 
translations  in  Mark's  Gospel  has  been  used  as  proof  that 
he  wrote  originally  in  that  language.  Blass,  Marshall, 
Wellhausen  and  others,  as  we  have  seen,  have  so  argued. 
But  Swete  urges  that  the  use  of  both  transliteration  and  trans- 
lation seems  to  show  that  the  book  was  written  originally 
in  Greek.  We  know  from  Papias  that  Mark  was  Peter's 
interpreter  or  dragoman,  and  was  equally  at  home  in  both 
Aramaic  and  Greek,  while  Peter  usually  spoke  in  the  Aramaic. 
It  seems  likely  that  Mark's  habit  of  translating  for  Peter's 
discourses  crops  out  in  the  Gospel  which  was  probably  writ- 
ten in  the  current  Greek. 

2.  Proper  Names. — It  is  interesting  to  note  these  Aramaic 
terms  and  the  circumstances  connected  with  their  use.  Some 
of  them  are  in  Mark  alone,  some  in  Matthew,  Luke  or  John, 
but  Mark  has  more  of  them,  and  several  times  he  both 
transhterates  and  translates.  Mark  has  the  Aramaic  form 
of  some  proper  names,  like  Simon  the  Cananaean  (3  :i8.  Zealot 
in  Luke  6:14),  Judas  Iscarioth  (3:19,  Iscariot  in  Luke  6: 
16),  Golgotha  (15:22;  Matt.  27:33)  is  translated  both  in 
Matthew  and  Mark  as  "the  place  of  a  skull,"  while  Luke  (23: 
33)  has  only  "the  place  which  is  called  the  skull"  (like  Latin 
Calvary),  and  John  (19:17)  has  "the  place  called  the  place 
of  a  skull,  which  is  called  in  Hebrew  Golgotha."  It  is  not 
surprising  that  the  Gospels  all  seek  to  locate  carefully  the 

1  The  Convention  Teacher  (Nashville),  May,  1918. 


ARAMAIC  AND   LATIN  TERMS   IN  MARK^S  GOSPEL      1 23 

scene  of  the  tragedy  of  the  cross  on  the  hill  which  looks  like  a 
skull  just  to  the  north  of  Jersualem. 

3.  Boanerges. — In  3:17  Mark  says  that  Jesus  surnamed 
James  and  John  "Boanerges,  which  is  sons  of  thunder." 
It  is  not  said  that  Jesus  gave  them  this  "nickname"  at  the 
time  that  they  were  chosen  as  apostles.  We  know  that  later 
James  and  John  wished  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  on  the 
Samaritan  village  that  did  not  receive  Christ  kindly  and  were 
sternly  rebuked  by  Jesus  (Luke  9:52-55).  This  explosive 
trait  in  the  two  brothers  appears  also  in  the  impulsive  request 
that  they  be  given  the  two  chief  places  in  Christ's  kingdom 
(Mark  10:35^^.;  Matt.  20:20^.).  Mark  alone  has  preserved 
the  word  "Boanerges"  as  applied  by  Christ  to  them,  but 
Justin  Martyr  (Dialogue  with  Trypho)  says  that  in  Peter's 
"Memoirs"  of  Jesus  is  recorded  the  fact  that  Jesus  "named 
the  two  sons  of  Zebedee  'Boanerges,'  which  means  'sons  of 
thunder.'"  Mark's  Gospel  was  sometimes  called  Peter's 
Memorabilia  of  Jesus. 

4.  Talitha  cum  (i). — In  5:41  we  have  another  instance  of 
the  Aramaic  transhteration.  There  is  a  tender  touch  of 
pathos  in  the  preservation  of  the  very  words  used  by  Jesus 
as  he  stood  by  the  bedside  of  the  twelve-year  old  daughter 
of  Jairus.  The  message  had  already  come  to  Jesus  that  the 
child  was  dead  and  that  he  need  not  trouble  further  about  the 
case  (Mark  5:35/),  but  Jesus  disregarded  the  word  and  urged 
the  ruler,  "Fear  not,  only  believe."  He  took  along  with  him 
Peter,  James,  and  John.  The  crowd  of  mourners  "laughed 
him  to  scorn,"  when  Jesus  insisted  that  "the  child  is  not 
dead,  but  sleepeth."  Mark  is  never  more  graphic  than  in  the 
following  verse:  "  But  he,  having  put  them  all  forth,  taketh  the 
father  of  the  child  and  her  mother  and  them  that  were  with 
him,  and  goeth  in  where  the  child  was."  Peter  was  in  that 
chamber  of  death  and  now  for  the  first  time  saw  Jesus  raise 
the  dead.  He  remembered  Christ's  very  words  as  "taking 
the  child  by  the  hand,  he  saith  unto  her,  *  Talitha  cum  (i).'" 
Jesus  used  either  Greek  or  Aramaic  as  occasion  required. 


124  STUDIES  IN  MARK  S   GOSPEL 

Here  he  spoke  in  Aramaic  and  these  are  the  very  words 
employed  by  him;  just  these  two  words.  'Ta/iZ/fa"  means 
''maid,"  and  ^^cum  (i)"  means  "arise."  Mark  heard  Peter 
tell  the  story  and  kept  the  Aramaic  language  of  Jesus,  but 
took  pains  to  translate  it  in  Greek  for  the  benefit  of  his  many 
readers  who  did  not  know  the  Aramaic,  just  as  John  trans- 
lates the  Aramaic  titles  "rabbi"  (1:38)  and  "Messiah" 
(1:41)  and  the  name  "Cephas"  (1:42).  The  chamber  of 
death  became  the  chamber  of  life,  for  Jesus  was  in  it,  and  joy 
took  the  place  of  grief  in  that  home. 

5.  Corban. — Once  again  Mark  retains  the  Aramaic  word 
"Corban"  and  explains  it  as  meaning  ''Given  to  God^'  (7*11). 
Matthew  (15:5)  has  only  the  translation.  Peter  was  present 
on  that  occasion  when  Jesus  so  powerfully  exposed  the  hol- 
lowness  of  the  Pharisaic  traditionalism  which  put  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  elders  in  the  place  of  the  Word  of  God  and  "Peter 
answered  and  said  unto  him.  Declare  unto  us  the  parable" 
(Matt.  15:15).  Mark  thus  retains  Christ's  striking  word 
which  Peter  remembered.  The  explanation  by  Jesus  was 
particularly  pertinent,  for  Peter,  in  view  of  his  later  experience 
at  Joppa  and  at  Caesarea  (Acts  10).  Mark  (7:19)  adds  a  sug- 
gestive anacoluthic  clause:  "Making  all  meats  clean."  Peter 
did  not  see  it  then,  but  he  did  afterwards.  Mark  may  be  here 
preserving  Peter's  own  comment  on  the  incident.  The  Jews 
had  become  so  used  to  the  Pharisaic  trickery  called  "  Corban" 
that  the  exposure  and  denunciation  of  it  seemed  a  breach  of 
courtesy  to  the  disciples  (Matt.  15:12).  Custom  so  easily 
and  so  quickly  blinds  the  eyes  to  moral  and  spiritual  reality. 

6.  Ephphatha. — Another  Aramaic  word  in  Mark  (7:34) 
is  '' Ephphatha,^'  and  means  "Be  opened,"  as  Mark  explains 
in  Greek.  Here  again  the  probability  is  that  Mark  is  retain- 
ing Peter's  verbatim  report  of  the  words  of  Jesus  to  the  deaf 
and  dumb  man  when  he  was  healed.  The  notes  of  an  eye- 
witness are  present  in  Mark's  report  here.  Jesus  "took  him 
aside  from  the  multitude  privately,"  as  he  often  did,  and,  in 
particular,  when  he  wished  to  avoid  public  commotion  as 


ARAMAIC  AND  LATIN  TERMS  IN  MARK's  GOSPEL      1 25 

here  in  the  borders  of  Decapohs.  Mark  gives  the  various 
details,  how  Jesus  "put  his  fingers  into  his  ears,"  as  if  to 
awaken  the  sense  of  hearing.  Then  *'he  spat,  and  touched  his 
tongue,"  as  if  again  to  help  the  man  by  suggestion.  Then 
"looking  up  to  heaven,  he  sighed,  and  saith  unto  him,  ^'Eph- 
phatha,  that  is,  Be  opened."  Evidently  Peter  told  this  in- 
cident with  vividness.  Mark  sees  the  picture  and  makes  us 
see  it.  The  cure  was  instantaneous  and  Jesus  charged  the 
witnesses  to  tell  no  man,  "but  the  more  he  charged  them,  so 
much  the  more  a  great  deal  they  published  it"  (Mark  7:36), 
a  bit  of  nature  not  unknown  to-day.  In  Mark  9 :5  we  have  the 
Aramaic  "rabbi"  (my  honorable  sir)  without  translation  into 
Greek,  where  Matthew  (17:4)  has  "Lord,"  and  Luke  (9-33) 
has  "Master."  In  Matthew  23:8  "Rabbi"  is  translated  by 
"Teacher"  as  "Rabboni"  is  in  John  20:16.  Mark  has 
"Rabboni"  in  10:51,  text  of  Westcott  and  Hort,  though  in 
the  margin  we  find  "Lord,  Rabbi." 

7.  BartimcBus. — Mark  alone  preserves  the  redundant 
" Bartimaeus,"  "the  son  of  Timaeus"  (10:46).  Here,  again, 
Peter's  quick  ear  and  love  of  detail  caught  and  held  the  name 
of  this  blind  beggar  "sitting  by  the  wayside"  as  Mark  pic- 
tures him.  Mark  11:9,  like  Matthew  (21:9),  retains  the 
Aramaic  "Hosannah"  of  the  exultant  throng  as  they  marched 
into  Jerusalem. 

8.  Abba,  Father. — Once  more  it  is  Mark  (14:36)  who 
gives  us  "Abba,  Father,"  from  the  hps  of  Jesus  as  he  "fell 
on  the  ground,  and  prayed  that,  if  it  were  possible,  the  hour 
might  pass  from  him."  Matthew  has  "O  my  Father"  (26: 
39),  and  Luke  (22:42)  "Father."  It  is  not  certain  that  we 
have  here  transhteration  and  translation  as  in  some  other 
instances  in  Mark.  It  is  quite  possible  that  here  Jesus  him- 
self uttered  both  words,  the  Aramaic  "Abba^'  and  the  Greek 
^' Pater,''  somewhat  like  our  "Papa,  Father."  In  moments 
of  great  emotion  the  language  of  childhood  comes  back  to 
us  with  tremendous  meaning.  Twice  we  find  Paul  using 
this  very  combination  in  referring  to  God.    In  both  instances 


126 

he  gives  us  the  language  of  childhood.  Paul  was  bihngual, 
as  was  Jesus.  In  Galatians  4:7  it  is  God's  Spirit  (the  Spirit 
of  God's  Son)  teaching  our  hearts  to  cry,  "Abba,  Father," 
and  to  feel  the  joy  of  sonship.  In  Romans  8:16  it  is  the 
spirit  of  adoption  that  leads  us  to  look  up  to  God  as  Father 
and  lovingly  say,  "Abba,  Father."  But,  all  the  more,  we 
see  how  Mark  has  given  us  the  very  words  that  burst  from 
the  heart  of  Jesus  in  his  hour  of  great  agony  in  the  Garden 
of  Gethsemane. 

9.  Eloi,  Eloi. — In  Mark  15:34  we  have  "tlie  Aramaic 
word  from  the  Cross,"  in  contrast  with  the  Hebrew  form  in 
Matthew  27:46.  In  both  instances  the  translation  is  given. 
Jesus  almost  certainly  cried  out  after  the  three  hours  of 
dreadful  darkness  and  unbearable  silence  in  the  Aramaic. 
The  Hebrew  "Eli"  sounds  more  like  "Elijah,"  as  some 
misunderstood  Jesus,  than  the  Aramaic  "Eloi."  But  it  was 
a  misapprehension  in  either  case.  One  can  almost  hear  that 
cry  of  protest  against  the  burden  of  the  world's  sin  on  his 
soul  as  the  Father  for  the  moment  veiled  his  face.  Jesus  had 
always  till  now  been  able  to  find  comfort  and  understanding 
in  the  Father  who  now  seemed  to  have  "left"  him,  even 
"reproached"  (some  manuscripts  have  it)  him.  No  wail  of 
woe  was  ever  so  bitter  as  this.  Jesus  was  drinking  his  cup 
to  the  very  bottom. 

We  can  no  longer  insist  that  Mark's  "  by  companies " 
(o-v/xTTOO-ta  crvftTTOO-ta  6:39)  and  "in  ranks"  (Trpao-iat  irpaa-iatj 
garden-beds,  garden-beds,  6:40)  is  Aramaic  repetition,  for  the 
papyri  show  like  duphcation  of  words. 

10.  Latin  Words, — Some  scholars  argue  that  Mark  wrote 
his  Gospel  first  in  Latin,  because  he  was  in  Rome  and  be- 
cause he  has  some  Latin  words  in  the  book.  A  few  of  the 
late  manuscripts  of  the  Gospel  also  afhrm  in  the  subscrip- 
tions that  Mark  wrote  in  Latin.  He  probably  knew  Latin 
as  did  Paul,  but  it  is  highly  improbable  that  he  wrote  in 
Latin.  Greek  was  the  language  in  current  use  over  the 
empire  and  in  Rome  itself  outside  of  the  ojSicial  documents. 


127 

Marcus  Aurelius  wrote  his  Meditations  in  Greek.  Paul 
wrote  to  the  church  in  Rome  in  Greek.  There  are  a  few 
more  Latin  words  in  Mark  than  in  the  other  Gospels,  but 
this  is  certainly  only  natural  if  he  was  in  Rome.  They  are 
all  poUtical,  miUtary,  or  monetary  words,  just  the  ones  that 
would  permeate  the  current  Greek.  So  we  find  denarius 
(Mark  6:37),  centurion  (15:39,  44),  quadrans  (12:42),  pallet 
or  camp-bed  (2:4,  9,  11),  legion  (5:9,  15),  sextarius  or  wooden 
pitcher  for  measuring  Hquids  (7:4,  8),  spy  or  scout,  specu- 
lator (6:27). 

Mark  wrote  in  the  vernacular  Greek  of  the  period,  the 
koine,  but  was  undoubtedly  at  home  in  the  Aramaic  ^  (his 
native  tongue),  and  probably  had  an  acquaintance  with  the 
ofl5cial  Latin.^  He  was  a  practical  hnguist,  not  a  technical 
expert.  He  has  given  us  the  language  of  the  life  of  the  times 
and  some  actual  transUterations  of  the  Aramaic  words  of 
Jesus  our  Lord. 

1  See  Robertson,  Grammar  of  the  Greek  N.  T.  in  the  Light  of  His- 
torical Research,  pp.  102-5,  118/. 
'^  Ibid.,  pp.  108-H1. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  DISPUTED  CLOSE  OF  MARK's  GOSPEL  * 

"And  they  said  nothing  to  any  one;  for  they  were  afraid."    Mark  i6:8 

I.  Interpolations  in  the  New  Testament. — Textual  criticism 
is  considered  a  dry  subject  by  most  people,  whether  it  be 
concerned  with  the  text  of  Homer,  Shakespeare,  or  Mark, 
but  it  is  a  necessary  science.  There  are  many  who  recall  the 
sensation  created  when  the  Revised  Version  was  printed 
without  John  5:4  (the  angel  stirring  the  water).  Acts  8:37 
(the  demand  for  the  eunuch's  confession),  and  i  John  5:7-8 
(the  famous  passage  about  the  Trinity).  And  yet  no  one 
to-day  dares  claim  the  genuineness  of  these  passages,  which 
are  found  in  the  Textus  Receptus.  The  addition  in  i  John 
5:7-8  "never  was  a  part  of  the  Greek  New  Testament  and 
should  be  omitted  from  it  as  if  Erasmus  had  never  been 
brought  to  print  it.  It  should  be  left  out  without  word  or 
sign  that  any  false  word  ever  had  been  there."  ^  It  seems 
reasonably  certain  also  that  John  7:53-8:11  (the  story  of 
the  woman  taken  in  adultery)  is  not  a  part  of  the  Gospel  of 
John.  The  evidence  against  it  is  overwhelming,  and  yet  it 
is  almost  certainly  a  true  incident.  The  verdict  of  Gregory 
may  be  accepted  again:  ''I  do  not  doubt  that  this  story  is 
a  true  story  and  that  it  has  exercised  its  charm  in  oral  and 
then  in  written  tradition  since  the  day  on  which  the  woman 
stood  before  Jesus."  ^  We  must  remember  that  the  gospels 
do  not  undertake  to  tell  all  that  Jesus  did  and  said.    There 

*  The  Homiletic  Review  (New  York),  June,  1918. 

2  Gregory,  The  Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament^  1907,  p.  517. 

^Ibid.,  513. 

128 


THE   DISPUTED   CLOSE    OF   MARK'S   GOSPEL  1 29 

are  numerous  interpolations  in  various  manuscripts  of  the 
New  Testament,  some  of  them  very  interesting.  It  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at  that  during  the  long  centuries  some 
scribes  made  marginal  notes  that  crept  into  the  text.  D.  L. 
Moody  marked  his  Bible  from  end  to  end.  It  is  one  of  the 
treasures  to  see  at  Northfield.  The  great  number  of  Greek 
manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  some  of  them  very 
early,  make  it  possible  to  eliminate  most  of  the  additions 
with  great  ease. 

2.  The  Difficulty  About  Mark  i6:q-20. — ^This  is  the  chief 
textual  problem  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark  and,  one  may  add, 
in  the  New  Testament  itself.  The  length  of  it  makes  the 
loss  of  it  serious  and  it  seems  to  leave  the  Gospel  a  torso. 
A  long  and  furious  battle  has  raged  round  this  problem,  the 
smoke  of  which  may  be  said  to  have  finally  cleared  away. 
Great  scholars  championed  its  genuineness,  such  men  as 
Bengel,  Eichhorn,  Scholz,  De  Wette,  Olshausen,  Bleek, 
Lange,  Ebrard,  Scrivener,  Canon  Cook,  Sahnon,  E.  Miller, 
Belser,  and  in  particular  Dean  Burgon,  who  thought  that 
his  book.  The  Last  Twelve  Verses  of  S.  Mark,  settled  the 
problem.  *'He  assailed  those  who  were  for  removing  these 
verses  from  the  text,  and,  as  he  beheved,  smote  his  antago- 
nists hip  and  thigh  with  a  great  slaughter."  ^  But  critical 
scholars  have  found  it  very  hard  to  get  away  from  the  calm 
and  judicial  survey  of  all  the  facts  by  Hort  in  his  ''Notes  on 
Select  Readings"  (pp.  28-51),  Introduction  and  Appendix 
to  the  New  Testament  in  the  Original  Greek,  in  which  he  sums 
up  against  the  genuineness  of  Mark  16:9-20,  but  holds  that 
it  is  a  very  early  addition.  Gregory  is  positive  that  textual 
criticism  has  shown  that  this  passage  has  "no  right  to  a 
place  in  the  text  of  the  New  Testament."  ^  Maclean  ^ 
thinks  "that  neither  the  supporters  nor  the  impugners  of 
the  present  ending  have  quite  done  justice  to  the  strength 

1  J.  Rendel  Harris,  Sidelights  on  New  Testament  Research,  p.  86. 
^Op.  ciL,  p.  511. 

2  Mark's  Gospel,  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels. 


I30 

of  the  arguments  on  the  other  side."  John  A.  Broadus  held 
that  the  problem  had  not  been  solved,  but  that  at  least  the 
passage  was  too  doubtful  to  use  in  exposition  as  authorita- 
tive. Maclean,  however,  adds:  "The  difi&culties  on  neither 
side  can  be  neglected.  But  our  verdict  must  be  given  after 
weighing  probabilities,  and  to  the  present  writer  they  seem 
overwhelmingly  to  preponderate  against  the  Marcan  author- 
ship of  the  last  twelve  verses,  or  even  against  there  being  a 
real  ending  of  the  gospel  at  all."  Let  us,  then,  see  precisely 
what  the  situation  is.  There  is  a  positive  romance  about 
the  close  of  Mark's  Gospel. 

3.  The  Short  Ending. — Did  Mark's  Gospel  end  at  16:8? 
If  so,  it  ended  thus:  "And  they  went  out,  and  fled  from  the 
tomb;  for  trembhng  and  astonishment  had  come  upon  them: 
and  they  said  nothing  to  anyone;  for  they  were  afraid." 
Surely  this  is  an  astonishing  conclusion  for  a  Gospel  that 
tells  the  story  of  the  Risen  Christ.  "It  is  inconceivable," 
Maclean  argues,  "that  16:8,  with  its  abrupt  and  inauspicious 
ephobounto  gar  (i4>o^ovvTo  yap),  could  possibly  be  the  end  of  a 
gospel;  indeed,  it  seems  to  stop  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence." 
J.  Rendel  Harris  is  sure  that  two  more  words  were  written  by 
Mark  anyhow:  "I  am  not  going  to  speculate  on  these  matters 
further  than  to  tell  you  the  first  two  words  that  will  be  found 
on  the  missing  leaf,  if  it  should  ever  be  recovered.  The 
narrative  went  on  Hke  this:  (For  they  were  afraid)  of  the 
Jews."  However,  Prof.  J.  H.  Farmer^  thinks  that  "it  is 
just  possible  that  the  Gospel  did  end  at  verse  8.  The  very 
abruptness  would  argue  an  early  date  when  Christians  lived 
in  the  atmosphere  of  the  resurrection  and  would  form  an 
even  appropriate  closing  for  the  *  Gospel  of  the  Servant.' 
A  Servant  comes,  fulfils  his  task,  and  departs — we  do  not 
ask  about  his  lineage  nor  follow  his  subsequent  history." 
The  fact  that  we  cannot  hold  to  either  of  the  longer  endings 
for  Mark,  Plummer  holds  to  be  conclusively  shown:  "That 
neither  of  these  endings  is  part  of  the  original  Gospel  is  one 
1  "Mark's  Gospel,"  International  Bible  Standard  Encyclopedia. 


THE  DISPUTED  CLOSE   OF  MARK  S   GOSPEL  131 

of  those  sure  results  of  modern  criticism  which  ought  no 
longer  to  need  to  be  proved."  ^  The  evidence  for  the  short 
ending  is  strong.  The  two  oldest  and  best  Greek  manu- 
scripts of  the  New  Testament,  Aleph  (Codex  Sinaiticus)  and 
B  (Codex  Vaticanus),  stop  with  verse  8.  B  has  blank  space, 
which  shows  that  the  scribe  knew  of  the  longer  ending  but 
concluded  not  to  give  it.  The  Sinaitic  Syriac  stops  also  at 
this  point  as  does  the  margin  of  the  Harclean  Syriac.  The 
best  manuscripts  of  the  Armenian  and  some  of  the  older 
Ethiopic  manuscripts  likewise  end  with  verse  8.  Eusebius 
says  that  "almost  all  the  Greek  copies"  are  without  further 
ending.  Victor  of  Antioch,  who  wrote  the  earUest  known 
commentary  on  Mark,  stops  his  comment  with  verse  8. 
Some  of  the  Greek  manuscripts  (cursives)  that  give  the 
longer  ending  say  that  it  is  not  found  in  other  manuscripts. 
The  cursive  Greek  manuscript  22  marks  "End"  after  verse 
8,  according  to  "some  of  the  copies,"  but  adds  that  "in 
many"  the  regular  ending  is  found.  Similar  comments 
appear  in  i,  20,  and  nearly  thirty  other  cursives.  L  gives 
two  other  endings  and  so  really  favors  neither,  though  ap- 
parently not  satisfied  to  stop  at  verse  8.  Thus  a  very  strong 
case  is  made  out  for  having  no  ending  other  than  16:8.  And 
yet  one  cannot  help  wondering  if  something  has  not  hap- 
pened, if  Mark  really  meant  to  end  his  Gospel  here. 

4.  The  Intermediate  Ending. — Four  Greek  uncial  manu- 
scripts (L,  *1^^,  p,  ^),  the  Greek  cursive  274  (margin),  the 
old  Latin  k,  the  manuscripts  of  the  Memphitic,  and  several 
of  the  Ethiopic  manuscripts  give  the  following  for  Mark's 
Gospel  after  16:8:  "And  they  reported  briefly  to  Peter  and 
those  in  his  company  all  the  things  commanded.  And  after 
these  things  Jesus  himself  also  sent  forth  through  them 
from  the  East  even  to  the  West  the  holy  and  incorruptible 
message  of  eternal  salvation."  The  four  uncials  belong  to 
the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  and  L  is  the  only  one  of  value. 

*  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges ,  Gospel  According  to  St. 
Mark,  p.  xxxix. 


132 

*'L  virtually  closes  the  Gospel  with  verse  8,  and  gives  this 
shorter  ending  as  current  in  some  places,  and  then  the  longer 
ending  as  also  current."  ^  L  thus  gives  three  ways  of  ending 
Mark.  The  other  manuscripts  also  give  the  ending  above 
as  an  alternative  to  the  long  ending  (the  Textus  Receptus), 
The  Old  Latin  k  has  this  intermediate  ending  alone.  But 
*'no  one  maintains  its  genuineness;  it  is  clearly  written  as 
an  end  to  the  Gospel  and  is  not  an  independent  fragment."  ^ 
Swete  ^  thinks  that  the  archetype  of  L,  "»^^,  p  ended  at  verse  8 
with  "for  they  were  afraid"  and  that  "the  scribes  have 
added  on  their  own  responsibihty  two  endings  with  which 
they  had  met  in  other  MSS.,  preferring  apparently  the 
shorter  one,  since  it  is  in  each  case  placed  first."  Hort  ^ 
thinks  that  this  little  paragraph  bears  some  resemblance  to 
Luke's  prologue  to  his  Gospel  (1:1-4).  The  date  was  clearly 
early,  but  "it  was  overshadowed  almost  from  the  first  by  the 
superior  merits  of  the  longer  ending."  ^  However,  since  no 
one  now  holds  it  to  be  genuine,  we  need  not  tarry  longer 
over  it. 

S.  An  Expansion  of  the  Long  Ending. — ^The  Washington 
manuscript  of  the  Gospel  (W)  has  "after  Mark  16:14  a 
remarkable  apocryphal  addition,  hitherto  only  partially 
known  from  a  reference  in  Jerome."  ^  So  Kenyon  "^  describes 
the  rather  startUng  expansion  in  this  manuscript  (Freer 
Gospels  or  W)  which  has  given  a  new  turn  to  the  discussion 
concerning  the  close  of  Mark's  Gospel.  America  has  reason 
to  be  proud  of  the  possession  of  this  valuable  document,  due 
to  the  generosity  of  Mr.  C.  L.  Freer,  of  Detroit.  Professor 
H.  A.  Sanders,  of  the  University  of  Michigan,  has  issued  a 
Facsimile  of  the  Washington  Manuscript  of  the  Four  Gospels 

*  Gould,  International  Critical  Commentary,  Mark,  p.  302. 
2  Maclean,  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels. 

^  Mark,  p.  xcix. 

*  Introduction,  pp.  298/. 
^  Swete,  op.  cit.,  p.  cii. 

^  Contra  Pelag.,  ii,  15. 

'  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  115. 


THE   DISPUTED   CLOSE   OF   MARK  S   GOSPEL  1 33 

(191 2)  with  an  Introduction.  He  places  the  date  of  the 
document  as  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  probably  the 
fourth,  and  thus  ranking  in  age  with  Aleph  and  B.  Pro- 
fessor E.  J.  Goodspeed,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  has 
made  a  collation  of  The  Freer  Gospels  (19 14)  with  the  text 
of  Westcott  and  Hort. 

"Two  lacunae  now  occur  (John  14:25-16:7;  Mark  15: 
13-38),  caused  by  the  dropping  out  of  two  leaves.  'The 
remainder  of  the  MS.  is  so  perfect  that  there  is  rarely  a 
letter  missing  or  indistinct.'  That  it  was  much  reverenced 
in  the  early  centuries  is  proved  by  the  blots  on  it  when  in  an- 
cient time  the  tallow  dropped  from  candles  while  it  was  being 
shown  to  visitors,  or  the  early  saints  were  studying  it."  ^ 

Cobern  rightly  terms  this  a  '' spectacular  reading": 

"And  they  defended  themselves,  saying:  This  world  of 
lawlessness  and  of  unbelief  is  under  Satan,  which  does  not 
suffer  those  unclean  things  that  are  under  the  dominion  of 
spirits  to  comprehend  the  true  powers  of  God.  On  this 
account  reveal  thy  righteousness  now.  They  said  (these 
things)  to  Christ.  And  Christ  replied  to  them:  There  has 
been  fulfilled  the  term  of  years  of  the  authority  of  Satan, 
but  other  dreadful  things  are  drawing  nigh  (even  to  those) 
for  the  sake  of  whom  as  sinners  I  was  delivered  up  to  death 
in  order  that  they  might  inherit  the  spiritual  and  incorrupt- 
ible glory  of  righteousness  which  is  in  heaven." 

No  one  maintains  that  this  rather  florid  passage  belongs 
to  the  original  Mark  nor  even  to  the  original  form  of  the 
long  ending  of  the  Textus  Receptus.  Kenyon  seems  justified 
in  aligning  it  with  the  "apocryphal"  additions.  It  does  not 
stand  in  the  same  category  as  John  7:53-8:11,  which  is 
almost  certainly  a  true  incident.  Cobern  ^  is  probably  cor- 
rect in  calling  it  "a  marginal  note  which  came  from  very 
early  times  and  crept  into  the  text."    In  the  Washington 

*  Cobern,  The  New  Archeological  Discoveries  and  their  Bearing  Upon 
the  New  Testament,  191 7,  pp.  163/. 
2  Op.  cit.,  p.  164. 


134  STUDIES  IN  MARK  S   GOSPEL 

manuscript  the  order  of  the  Gospels  is  Matthew,  John, 
Luke,  Mark.  Gregory  ^  thought  it  important  enough  for 
a  monograph. 

6.  The  Long  Ending. — This  is  the  current  text  for  Mark 
16:9-20  as  we  have  it  in  our  editions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

"The  longer  ending,  as  we  have  it  in  our  Bibles,  requires 
a  longer  discussion,  because  the  strength  of  the  case  against 
the  genuineness  of  the  familiar  words  is  still  very  imper- 
fectly known,  and  because  the  other  side  has  been  fiercely 
defended  by  Burgon,  and  is  still  upheld  as  correct  by  Scriv- 
ener-Miller, Belser,  and  some  others."  ^  ''When  we  examine 
the  external  evidence,  the  question  seems  at  once  to  be 
decided  in  favor  of  the  disputed  twelve  verses."  ^ 

With  the  exception  of  Aleph,  and  B,  which  have  no  ending, 
and  L,  "i^^,  P,  *,  which  have  both  endings,  "  the  longer  ending 
follows  verse  8,  without  a  break,  in  every  known  Greek 
MS^"  (Plummer)  outside  of  the  cursives  mentioned  above. 
It  appears  in  most  of  the  Old  Latin  manuscripts,  in  the 
Curetonian  Syriac,  in  the  Memphitic  and  in  the  Gothic 
versions.  Irenaeus  quotes  verse  19  as  part  of  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  and  thereafter  it  is  frequently  referred  to  by  Christian 
writers.  I  do  not,  however,  agree  with  Plummer  that  *'this 
external  testimony  to  the  genuineness  of  the  twelve  verses 
seems  to  be  not  only  conclusive,  but  superabundant."  Man- 
uscripts have  to  be  weighed  and  not  merely  counted.  Plum- 
mer rejects  the  passage  in  spite  of  that  strong  statement. 
Any  passage  in  the  Gospels  that  is  not  supported  by  Aleph 
and  B,  L,  Sinai  tic  Syriac,  k  of  the  Old  Latin  manuscripts 
is  far  from  having  it  all  one  way.  Besides,  the  existence  of 
two  of  these  added  endings  (really  three,  counting  the  logion 
in  the  Washington  Manuscript)  discredits  each  of  them. 

^  Das  Freer-Logion,  igo8. 

2  Plummer,  Commenlary  on  St.  Mark  in  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools 
and  Colleges^  p.  xl. 
^  Ibid.,  p.  xli. 


THE   DISPUTED   CLOSE    OF   MARK  S   GOSPEL  135 

When  the  external  evidence  is  classified  by  Westcott  and 
Hort,  dropping  out  the  Syrian  class  of  late  documents  and 
admitting  mixture  between  the  Alexandrian  and  the  West- 
ern classes,  we  have  at  bottom  a  conflict  between  the  Neutral 
and  the  Western  classes,  with  the  presumption  in  favor  of 
the  Neutral  class  (Aleph,  B,  L).  ''On  appealing  to  internal 
evidence  of  classes  the  apparent  conjunction  of  Western  and 
Alexandrian  witnesses  is  discredited,  and  we  must  decide 
that  the  genealogical  evidence  is  in  favor  of  omission."  ^ 
When  we  turn  to  internal  evidence  the  case  against  the 
passage  is  very  much  strengthened,  "proving  conclusively 
that  these  verses  could  not  have  been  written  by  Mark."  ^ 
Verses  8  and  9  do  not  really  fit  together.  This  closing  para- 
graph has  a  number  of  non-Marcan  words  (dTrto-rew,  idofxai, 
IxeTo.  TavTa,  TropevofxaL,  &c.).  These  are  Johannine,  but 
not  Marcan.  The  style  is  less  vivid  and  more  didactic. 
*'The  historian  has  given  place  to  the  theologian,  the  in- 
terpreter of  St.  Peter  to  the  scholar  of  St.  John."  ^  There  is 
every  evidence,  therefore,  that  we  have  here  an  independent 
composition,  a  sort  of  early  epitome  of  the  appearance  of 
Jesus,  after  the  order  of  the  documents  used  by  Luke  to 
which  he  refers  in  his  Gospel,  1:1-4. 

So  far,  critics  had  come  with  surprising  unanimity  when 
"in  November,  189 1,  Mr.  F.  C.  Conybeare  found  in  the 
Patriarchal  Library  of  Edschmiatzin  an  Armenian  MS.  of 
the  Gospels,  written  A.  D.  986,  in  which  the  last  twelve 
verses  of  St.  Mark  are  introduced  by  a  rubric  written  in  the 
first  hand,  'Of  the  Presbyter  Ariston.'''  ^  Who  is  this  "Pres- 
byter Ariston"  who  is  here  said  to  be  the  author  of  the  long 
ending  of  Mark's  Gospel?  i"So  here  at  last  was  the  missing 
evidence  for  the  authority  of  the  last  twelve  verses,  and  a 
discovery  for  critical  confirmation  which  should  be  the  end 

^  Warfield,  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  201. 

2  Gould,  Commentary,  p.  302. 

3  Swete,  Commentary,  p.  ciii. 
*  Ihid.,  p.  ciii. 


136  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

of  all  Strife."  ^  Professor  Bacon  had  suggested  that  the 
Armenian  scribe  had  been  reading  the  "History"  of  Moses 
of  Chorene  and  understood  him  to  affirm  that  Hadrian  made 
Aristo  of  Pella  the  secretary  of  Mark  when  he  made  him 
bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  never  attributes  the  appendix  to 
Mark's  secretary.  Harris  replies  about  this  ingenious  theory: 
"Everybody  misunderstands  everything"  (p.  96),  and  dis- 
misses the  conjecture.  JThe  usual  interpretation  to-day  is 
that  the  Armenian  scribe  had  in  mind  the  Aristion  whom 
Papias  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  Presbyter  John 
(probably  the  Apostle  John).  If  so,  then  this  Appendix 
comes  from  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John  and  the  Johannine 
style  is  explained.  Harris  says:  "There  does  not  seem  to 
be  much  room  for  hesitation,"  and  Plummer  agrees  (p.  xliv). 
Gregory  is  positive  that  now  we  know  the  author  of  this 
addition  to  be  the  Aristion  of  Papias.  "A  few  years  ago  no 
one  could  answer  that  question.  Now  we  can  answer  it."  ^ 
Gould  objects  to  the  character  of  some  of  the  items  in  Mark 
16:9-20:  "But  the  taking  up  serpents  and  drinking  of  deadly 
things  without  harm  belong  strictly  to  the  category  of 
thaumaturgy  ruled  out  by  Jesus."  ^  Swete  draws  this  con- 
clusion: 

"When  we  add  to  these  defects  in  the  external  evidence 
the  internal  characteristics  which  distinguish  these  verses 
from  the  rest  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  impossible  to  resist  the 
conclusion  that  they  belong  to  another  work,  whether  that 
of  Aristion  or  of  some  unknown  writer  of  the  first  century."  "* 

Rendel  Harris  calls  this  "excess  of  caution."  Mark  had 
more  than  one  manner,  we  may  admit.  Salmon^  pleads 
that  "we  must  ascribe  the  authorship  to  one  who  lived  in 
the  very  first  age  of  the  Church.    And  why  not  to  St.  Mark?  " 

1  J.  Rendel  Harris,  Side-lights  on  New-Testament  Research^  p.  92. 

2  Canon  atid  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  511. 
2  Commentary,  p.  303. 

*  Ihid.,  p.  cv. 

^  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  p.  151. 


THE  DISPUTED  CLOSE   OF  MARK's  GOSPEL  137 

To  be  sure,  if  Mark  made  several  editions  of  his  Gospel,  as 
Holdsworth  argues/  he  may  have  added  this  ending  to  the 
last  one.  But  even  so,  there  would  still  be  the  difference  in 
style  to  explain.  The  notion  that  the  Petrine  material  gave 
out  at  16:8  assumes  that  Peter  wrote  out  his  recollections, 
which  is  not  what  tradition  says  about  it. 

7.  A  Lost  Ending. — So  far,  we  have  considered  the  possi- 
bility that  Mark's  Gospel  stopped  at  16:8  without  further 
ending.    But  Rendel  Harris  will  have  none  of  that. 

^'We  are  aware  now  that  the  Gospel  is  shorn  of  its  last 
twelve  verses  and  ends  abruptly  with  the  words  'And  they 
were  afraid' — which  is  not  a  literary  ending  nor  a  Christian 
ending  and  can  hardly  be  a  Greek  ending:  so  that  we  are 
obliged  to  assume  that  the  real  ending  of  Mark  is  gone,  and 
speculate  as  we  please  as  to  what  has  become  of  it  and  what 
it  was  like."  ^ 

I  do  not  myself  feel  quite  so  sure  as  Dr.  Harris  that  the 
Gospel  did  not  end  with  16:8.  It  may  not  be  Uterary  and  it 
is  rather  free  Greek  (vernacular  Koine  such  as  Mark  used), 
but  it  is  certainly  Christian,  for  it  establishes  the  fact  of 
Christ's  resurrection  with  the  restoration  of  Peter  to  favor. 
The  fear  of  the  women  does  make  a  rather  depressing  close, 
but  we  do  not  know  what  Mark's  motives  were,  if  he  closed 
here.  It  is  possible,  of  course,  that  Mark  meant  to  write 
more  and  never  did,  being  interrupted  by  a  journey  or  even 
by  death.  "This  supposition  is  against  the  ecclesiastical 
testimony  which  makes  Mark  finish  his  Gospel  and,  in  some 
cases,  makes  him  take  it  to  Eg3^t."  ^  It  is  possible  that  the 
last  leaf  of  the  autograph  was  lost  before  there  were  any 
copies  made  of  it.  In  the  papyrus-roll  the  outside  leaf  would 
be  the  first  to  be  torn  off.  It  is  common  enough  with  us  for 
the  last  leaf  of  paper-bound  books  to  be  lost.  "Why  Mark's 
Gospel  has  come  down  to  us  incomplete,  we  do  not  know. 

^  Gospel  Origins,  p.  115. 

^Sidelights  on  New-Testament  Research,  p.  87. 

2  Maclean,  in  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gospds, 


138  STUDIES  IN  mark's   GOSPEL 

Was  Mark  interrupted  at  this  point  by  arrest  or  martyrdom 
before  he  finished  his  book?  Was  a  page  lost  off  the  auto- 
graph itself?  Or  do  all  of  our  witnesses  carry  us  back  only 
to  a  mutilated  copy  short  of  the  autograph,  the  common 
original  of  all  of  them,  so  that  our  oldest  transmitted  text  is 
sadly  different  from  the  original  text?"^  Shall  we  stop 
with  this  critical  impasse?  Plummer  argues  that,  as  no  one 
defends  the  intermediate  ending  as  genuine,  ''we  may  hope 
that  the  time  is  near  when  it  will  be  equally  true  of  the 
longer  and  much  more  familiar  ending."  ^  We  must,  in  that 
case,  treat  the  longer  ending  as  instructive,  but  not  a  part 
of  Mark's  Gospel.  "A  Christian  may  read,  enjoy,  ponder 
them,  and  be  thankful  for  them  as  much  as  he  pleases."  ^ 
"No  one  thing  in  reference  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark  could 
afford  the  textual  critic  greater  pleasure  than  the  finding  of 
the  words  with  which  Mark  continued  the  text  after  yap  and 
finished  his  Gospel."  ^ 

Will  it  ever  happen?  Who  can  tell?  Stranger  things 
have  already  taken  place  in  modern  research.  If  Mark  did 
write  more  for  his  Gospel  and  if  copies  were  made  of  the 
autograph  before  it  perished  and  before  that  leaf  or  leaves 
disappeared,  then  some  day  we  may  see  the  true  ending  of 
Mark's  Gospel.  "I  regard  it  nevertheless  as  one  of  the 
possibilities  of  future  finds  that  we  receive  this  Gospel  with 
its  own  authentic  finish."  ^  Dr.  Gregory  has  been  killed  in 
battle  in  France  and  he  did  not  live  to  see  the  discovery  for 
which  he  longed  and  looked.  With  his  dying  wish  we  close 
this  chapter:  "Mark  has  been  connected  with  Alexandria. 
May  Grenfell  and  Hunt  add  to  their  numerous  gifts  the  close 
of  tie  original  Mark  from  an  Egyptian  papyrus!" 

1  Warfield,  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  204. 
*  Commentary,  p.  xxxix. 

3  Gregory,  Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  513. 

4  Ihid. 

^  Gregory,  op.  cit.,  p.  512. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS,  BOOKS,  TOPICS 


Abba,  125 

Adverse  opinions,  71 

Allen,  I,  12,  13,  14,30,32 

Aleph,  131,  134,  135 

Alexandria,  138 

Alexandrian  Class  of  Mss.,  135 

Amanuensis,  Mark  as  Peter's,  37 

Antioch,  3,  5,  6,  13 

Apocalypse  of  Jesus,  118 

Apocalypse,  Little,  16,  40,  118 

Apocryphal  Gospels,  41,  42 

Apostle  John  on  Mark,  23,  29,  39 

Aramaic  Mark,  13,  32,  33 

Aramaic    and    Latin    Terms    in 

Mark,  122-127 
Aramaic,        Mark        translating 

Peter's,  7,  44 
Aramaic  Matthew,  9,  12,  29,  32 
Argyll,  Duke  of,  53 
Aristion  of  Papias,  136 
Aristo  of  Pella,  136 
Ariston,  135,  136 
Armenian  Ms.,  135 
Arnold,  Matthew,  50 
Augustine,  22 
Authority,  Note  of,  83 

B  (Codex  Vaticanus),  131,  134 

Babylon,  7,  23 

Back  to  Christ,  63 

Bacon,  15,  19,  21,  2,2>,  62,  64,  108, 

109,  no,  136 
Ballard,  55 
Baptist,  John  the,  and  Jesus,  66, 

68,80 
Barnabas,  3,  4,  6,  7 
Bartimaeus,  125 
Bartlet,  9,  32 


Bauer,  Bruno,  35 

Beginnings  of  the  Gospel  Story,  15, 

19,  21,  64,  108,  no 
Belser,  129 
Bengel,  129 
Bennett,  65 
Bible  for    Home    and    School    on 

Matthew,  32 
Biblical  World,  47,  108 
Blass,  13,  32 
Bleek,  129 
Boanerges,  123 
Bond,  79,  93 
Books  which  Influenced  Our  Lordj 

92 
Bousset,  48 
Broadus,  30,  130 
Bruce,  52,  54,  98,  in 
Bugge,  104 
Burgon,  129 
Burkitt,  16,  21 
Burton,  30,  34 

Caesarea,  10,  14,  26 

Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools,  109, 
131,  134,  136^ 

Cambridge  Biblical  Essays,  16 

Canon  and  Text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 128,  136 

Carpenter,  47 

Cataline,  27 

Chapman,  Dom,  23,  36 

Children  tJnderstood  by  Christ,  89 

Children  fond  of  Mark's  Gospel,  18 

Christ  of  Liberal  Theology,  48 

Christ  Myth,  The,  19 

Christ  of  Mark's  Gospel,  34, 62-78. 

Christ  of  Q,  34 


139 


140 


INDEX 


Christian  Advocate  (New  York),  92 
Christian  Origins,  35,  47,  48,  62, 

64,  66,  109,  no 
Christian  Workers'  Magazine,  90 
Christ's  Conception  of  his  Death, 

74-76 
Christ's  Death,  116,  120 
Christ's  Method  and  Manner  in 

Preaching,  93 
Cicero,  27 

Civilization  at  the  Cross-Roads,  49 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  15,  23,  38 
Cobem,  133 

Codex  Sinaiticus,  131,  134,  135 
Codex  Vaticanus,  131,  134,  135 
Commentary  on  St.  Mark's  Gospel, 

13,  21,  22,  30,  78,  109 
Composition  and  Date  of  Acts,  32 
Composition  of  the  Four  Gospels,  34 
Confessing  Messiahship,  116 
Connection  of  Mark  with  Peter,  23 
Cons.  Evang.,  de,  22 
Constructive  Quarterly,  19,  62,  65 
Convention  Teacher,  55 
Conversational  Style,  93 
Conybeare,  F.  C,  19,  135 
Cook,  129 
Corban,  124 
Counterfeit  Miracles,  50 
Courage  unto  Death,  90-92 
Cross,  Ethics  and  the,  118 
Cross,  Victor  on  the,  76-78 
Current  Problems,  95 
Cyprus,  7 

Date  of  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels, 10,  II,  13 
Date  of  Luke's  Gospel,  10 
Date  of  Mark's  Gospel,  9-18,  24, 

37 
Date  of  Q,  11,  12 
Death  of  Christ,  74-76,  116,  120 
Definition  of  Parables,  97 
Deity  of  Christ  in  Mark,  64,  65, 

69,  70,  79)  no 


DeWette,  129 

Dictionary  of  Christ  and  the  Gos- 
pels, 33,  51,  102,  129,  132,  137 

Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  50,  67,  109 

Difficulty  about  Mark,  9:16-20, 
129 

Disciples  Puzzled,  72-74 

Disputed  Close  of  Mark's  Gospel, 
128-138 

Dobschiitz,  117 

Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Jesus 
Christ,  66 

Dragoman,  38 

Drews,  19 

Earliest  Gospel,  14 

Earliest  Picture  of  Christ,  65 

Early  Date  Most  Probable,  17 

Early  Testimony,  36 

Ebrard,  129 

Editing  of  Redactors,  14 

Edschmiatzin,  135 

EjQfect  of  Two-Document  Hypoth- 
esis, 9 

Egypt,  7,  14 

Eichhorn,  129 

Einleitung  in  die  drei  ersten 
Evangelien,  31 

ElHott,  83 

Eloi,  126 

Emotions  of  Jesus,  94 

Encyclopadia  Biblica,  33,  48,  52 

Entstehung  dcs  Marcus-evangel- 
iums,  14 

Epiphanius,  15,  23 

Epphatha,  124 

Eschatological  Jesus,  1 7 

Eschatology  of  Jesus,  117 

Eschatology  of  the  Gospels,  117 

Ethics  and  the  Cross,  118 

Exemplar  for  Preachers,  79-96 

Expansion  of  Long  Ending,  132 

Expositor  (Cleveland),  79,  97 

Expositor  (London),  9,  12,  32,  78 

Eusebius,  15,  22,  23,  36,  38 


INDEX 


141 


Evolution  and  Miracle,  50,  51 
Eyewitness,  Notes  of,  24,  42-46 

Fairbain,  65 

Farmer,  130 

Figgis,  49 

Finding    Difficulty    in    Teaching 

his  Students,  87 
Fishing  for  Fishers  of  Men,  82 
Foretelling  Death,  116 
Forsyth,  65 

Fourth  Gospel  and  Mark,  ^j 
Fourth    Gospel    in    Research    and 

Debate,  21 
Freer,  132 
Freer  Gospels,  133 
Freer-Logion,  Das,  134 
Friends  Misunderstanding  Christ, 

89 

Galilean  Gospel,  in 

Garvie,  50 

Germanic  Jesus,  1 7,  6^ 

Gestures  of  Jesus,  94 

Glimpses  of  Mark,  i 

Goodspeed,  133 

Good  Start  of  Mark,  3 

Gordon,  G.  A.,  55 

Gospel  According  to  St.  Luke  in 
Greek,  26 

Gospel  History  and  Its  Trans- 
mission, 16 

Gospel  Miracles,  55 

Gospel  of  God,  Preaching,  82 

Gospel  Origins,  14,  22,  137 

Gospels  as  Historical  Documents, 
17,  109 

Gould,  29,  66,  67,  109,  no,  in, 

132,  135 
Greek,  Current,  7,  32,  33,  137 
Greek  Mark,  13 
Greek  Matthew,  12 
Gregory,  128,  129,  134,  136,  138 
Grenfell  and  Hunt,  28,  138 
Groups  of  Parables,  9S-102 


Hadrian,  35,  136 

Haeckel,  50 

Haggadah,  84 

Halachah,  84 

Harnack,  10,  n,  13,  15,  20,  53 

Harris,  J.  Rendel,  129,  130,  137 

Hastings,  2>2,y  5°,  5i>  67,  102,  109, 

129 
Hauptparaheln  Jesu,  104 
Healing  Ministry,  84 
Hellenism,  21,  28 
Herodians,  119 
Hibbert  Journal,  20,  28,  50,  6^ 

Hindered  by  Popularity,  85 
Historical  Christ,  The,  19 
Historical  Jesus  and  the  Theological 

Christ,  47 
Historical  Worth  of  Mark  and  Q, 

34 

History   of  Early   Christian   Lit- 
erature, 17,35,36 

Hitchcock,  95 

Hobart,  n 

Holdsworth,  14,  22,  137 

Holtzmann,  29 

Homiletic  Review,  128 

Homiletics  of  Jesus,  79 

Hor(B  SynopticcB,  15,  16,  30,  43 

Hort,  129,  132 

Human  Element  in  the  Gospels,  1 2 

Hume,  54 

Humor  Jesu,  Der,  95 

Huxley,  50,  59 

Illingworth,  55 

Illustrations  of  Jesus,  95 

Imago  Christi,  79 

Importance   of   Peter's   Influence 

on  Mark's  Gospel,  35 
Intermediate    Ending    of   Mark's 

Gospel,  131 
International  Critical  Commentary 

on  Mark,  30,  67,  109,  no,  in, 

^35 


142 


INDEX 


International  Critical  Commentary 

on  Mattheiv,  30,  32. 
International  Standard  Bible  En- 

cyclopcBdia,  130 
Interpolations  in   the   New   Tes- 
tament, 128 
Interpreter,  Mark  as,  38,  122 
Introduction  to  the  Books  of  the  New 

Testament,  12,  13 
Introduction  to  the  Four  Gospels,  26 
Introduction   to   the   Literature    of 

the  New  Testament,  11,  15,  109 
Introduction  to  the  New  Testament, 

9,  II,  12,  22,  23,  36,  136 
Ijitroduction    to    the    Greek    New 

Testament,  132 
Irenaeus,  15,  22,  23,  38 
Irony  of  Jesus,  94 
Itinerant  Preacher,  92 

Jackson,  16,  117 

Jerome,  15,  23,  38,  132 

Jerusalem,  3,  14,  24 

Jesus  and  the  Future  Life,  118 

Jesus  Himself  the  Chief  Miracle, 

48-51 
Jesus  or  Christ  Controversy,  20,  63 
Jesus  Problem,  The,  16 
Johannine  Christ,  47,  63 
John  the  Baptist,  66,  68;  disciples 

of,  99 
John  the  Loyal,  80 
John  or  Mark,  23,  29,  37 
John,  Presbyter,  2,  22,  23,  36 
John  the  Presbyter  and  the  Fourth 

Gospel,  23,  36 
Jones,  M.,  12,  16,  48 
Judaizers,  5,  6 
Justin  Martyr,  37 

Kenyon,  132,  133 
Key  to  Miracle,  54 
Kinds  of  Miracles,  52-53 
Koine,  137 


L,  131,  132,  134,  135 

Lange,  129 

Latin  Terms  in  Mark,  126-127 

Latin  Mark,  t,2> 

Law,  94 

Liberal  Jesus,  63 

Life  and  Matter,  50 

Life  of  Christ  in  Recent  Research, 

117 
Life  of  Christ  According  to  St. 

Mark,  65 
Literary  Evolution  of  the  Gospels,  1 2 
Little  Apocalypse,  16,  40,  118 
Limitations  in  Mark's  Gospel,  66 
Lodge,  50 
Logia  (Q),  25,  28 
Logia  of  Jesus,  28,  1 1 1 
Lost  Ending  of  Mark's  Gospel,  137 
Luke  the  Physician,  1 1 
Luke  and  Mark,  13,  29 
Luke's     Gospel,     Date     of,     10; 

sources  of,  10,  25,  26,  32 

Mackmtosh,  65,  66 

Maclean,  2>2>,  67,  129,  130,  132,  137 

Mahaffy,  28 

Making  a  Point  of  the  Teaching, 
112-115 

Making  of  John  Mark,  1-8 

Making  Good  with  Simon  Peter,  7 

Making  Mistakes,  2 

Mark  a  Comfort  to  Paul,  7 

]\Iark,  Coolness  toward  Paul,  6 

Mark  as  Minister,  4 

Mark,  Influence  of  Peter  on,  35 

Mark,  Possible  Editions  of,  13,  33 

Mark  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke, 
27 

Mark  and  Q,  31,  33 

Mark  Responsible  for  our  Pic- 
ture of  Christ,  62-64 

Mark's  P'ailure  in  a  Crisis,  4 

Mark's  Good  Start,  2 

Mark's  Gospel,  Sources  of,  24, 
25,  33 


INDEX 


143 


Mark's  Gospel  and  the  Synoptic 

Problem,  19-34 
Mark's  Habit  as  Interpreter,  122 
Mark's  Knowledge  and  Use  of  Q, 

31,  3,2> 

Mark's  Mother  Mary,  3,  24 

Mark's  Purpose  in  his  Gospel,  65 

Mark's  Second  Chance  with  Bar- 
nabas, 6 

Mark's  Use  of  his  Material,  40-42 

Mark's  Use  of  Matthew,  2>2> 

Marshall,  13,  32 

Master  Preacher,  The,  79,  93 

Matthew,  Aramaic,  9,  12,  29,  32 

Matthew,  Canonical,  32,  33 

Matthew,  Greek,  12 

Matthew  and  the  Logia,  28,  31 

Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke,  1 1 

Menzies,  14 

Messiahship,  Confessing,  16 

Messianic  Consciousness,  66 

Method  of  Mark,  no 

Methodist  Review,  35 

Mightier  than  the  Baptist,  80 

Miller,  129 

Ministry  of  Sympathy,  90 

Miracles  and  Christianity,  50 

Miracle  and  Fact,  53 

Miracles  in  the  New  Testament,  55 

Miracles  of  Unbelief,  55 

Miracles,  Kinds  of,  52 

Miracles,  Expressions  of  Christ's 
Energy,  49 

Miraculous  Element  in  Mark's 
Gospel,  47-61 

Miraculous  Still  in  Mark,  47-48 

Misunderstood  by  his  Friends,  88 

Modern  vs.  Traditional  View  of 
Mark,  21 

Moffatt,  II,  15,  66,  109 

Moody's  Bible  at  Northfield,  129 

More  than  a  Collection  of  Dis- 
courses, 39,  40 

Moulton,  W.  J.,  102 

Mozley,  54 


Muirhead,  117 
Mystery-religion,  21 

Narrow  Limits  as  to  Date,  16 
Necessity  of  Knowing  Mark,  19 
Neutral  Class  of  Manuscripts,  135 
New  Archeological  Discoveries  and 

their    Bearing    upon    the    New 

Testament,  133 
New   Testament   in  the   Twentieth 

Century,  13,  16,  48 
New  Sayings  of  Jesus,  28 
Nietzsche,  17 
Nolloth,  I,  12,  28,  32 
Non-miraculous  Gospel,  55 
Note  of  Reality,  63-65. 
Notes  of  an  Eye-witness,  24 
Notes  of  Mark,  46 
Notes  on  Parables,  97,  98 
Number  of  Miracles,  51-52 

Objectivity  of  Mark,  108 

Oesterley,  117 

Old  Latin  K,  132,  134 

Olshausen,  129 

Oral    Theory    of    the    S3aioptic 

Gospels,  26 
Origen,  15,  23,  37 
Origin  of  Mark's  Gospel,  22 
Original  Extent  of  Q,  31 
Oxford    Studies    in    the    Synoptic 

Problem,  9,  11,  12,  14,  26,  27, 

29,  30,  3i>  32 
Oxyrhynchus  Logia,  17 

Papias,  I,  13,  22,  23,  25,  29,  31,  ^2, 

2>?>,  36,  2>1,  39,  40,  41,  136 
Parables    of   Jesus,    97-107;    less 

prominent    than    miracles,    97; 

definition    of,    97;    groups,    98; 

pointedness  of,  105;  summary, 

107 
Parabolic  Teaching  of  Christ,  98 
Party  Pamphlets,  Gospels,  27 
Patton,  34 


144 


INDEX 


Paul  and  Mark,  4,  5,  7,  8,  13,  no 
I^aul  and  Mark's  Gospel,  8,  24 
Paul,  Mark  a  Comfort  to,  7 
Paul's     Indignation     at     Mark's 

Conduct,  5 
Paulinism  of  Mark,  21,  64 
Pauline  Christ,  47,  63,  no 
Perga,  Mark's  Failure  at,  4,  5,  6 
Person  and  Place  of  Jesus  Christ, 

65 

Person  and  Principles  of  Jesus  in 
Mark's  Gospel,  67 

Peter  and  Mark,  2,  7 

Peter,  Mark  making  Good  with,  7. 
See  Author's  "Making  Good  in 
the  Ministry:  A  Sketch  of  John 
Mark." 

Peter's  Eyes,  42-46 

Peter's  Influence  on  Mark's  Gos- 
pel, 35-46 

Peter's  Memoirs,  37,  39 

Peter's  Interpretation  of  Christ,  46 

Peter's  Sermon  at  Caesarea,  24,  41 

Pfleiderer,  35,  47,  48,  49,  62,  63, 
64,  66,  109,  no 

Pharisees,  84,  99,  103,  113,  114, 
117,  119 

Philology  of  the  Gospels,  32 

Picture  of  Christ  from  Peter  and 
John,  42 

Picture  of  Christ  in  Q,  63 

Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology, 

6S 
Plummer,  130,  134,  136,  138 
Popularity,  Hindered  by,  85 
Possible  Editions  of  Mark's  Gos- 
pel, 13 
Poteat,  56 

Practical  Ethics  and  the  Cross,  118 
Preacher  and  His  Models,  The,  79 
Preacher's  Picture  of  Christ,  65,  79 
Preacher,  Jesus  the,  79 
Preacher,  Test  of,  89 
Preachers,  Tempted  like  Other,  8i 
Preacher,  Itinerant,  92 


Preaching  the  Gospel  of  God,  82 
Preaching,   Christ's  Method  and 

Manner,  93 
Pre-Christian  Jesus,  19 
Presbyter  Ariston,  135 
Presbyter  John,  2,  22,  23,  36 
Principles  of  Literary  Criticism,  34 
Probabilities    as    to    the    So-called 
Double  Tradition  of  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Ltike,  31 
Progress    of   Hellenism    in    Alex- 
ander's Empire,  28 
Proper  Names,  122 
Psychology  of  Jesus,  95 

Q  (Quelle,  source),  9,  11,  12,  25, 

28,  32,  34 
Q  and  Mark,  31,  32 
Q,  Christ  of,  63 
Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus,  1 7,  20, 

63,  117 
Questioning  by  Jesus,  94 

Rabbinism,  Pharisaic,  21,  84,  97 

Ramsay,  4,  10,  17 

Redactors,  14,  15,  2>ii  62 

Reign  of  Law,  53 

Religion  and  Miracle,  55 

Renaissance  of  Wonder,  55-61 

Renan,  19 

Repartee,  94 

Review  of  Theology  and  Philosophy j 

14 
Revolutionary  Discourse,  115 

Riddle  of  the  Universe,  50 

Rise  of  the  Christian  Religion,  12, 

28,32 
Robertson,  A.  T.,  32,  80,  127 
Robertson,  J.  M.,  16 
Rome,  7,  8,  10,  13,  14,  23,  24,  7,3 
Ross,  G.  A.  Johnston,  92 

Sacrificial     Aspects     of     Christ's 
Death,  120 


INDEX 


145 


Sadducees,  117 

Salmon,  12,  33,  129,  136 

Salmond,  109 

Sanday,  9,  26,  27,  29,  30,  54,  55, 
117 

Sanders,  132 

Sanhedrin,  119 

Sayings  of  Jesus,  20,  28 

Schmiedel,  20,  25,  s$y  48 

Schweitzer,  17,  20,  36,  63,  117 

Science  and  Christian  Tradition, 
50 

Scrivener,  129 

Seeking  Rest  and  Finding  Work, 
86 

Shorthand,  27 

Short  Ending  of  Mark's  Gospel, 
130 

Sidelights  on  New  Testament  Re- 
search, 129,  136,  137 

Simon  Peter,  see  Peter 

Sinaitic  Syriac,  131,  134 

Socrates,  37 

Soden,  von,  17,  35,36 

Son  of  God,  69,  70,  79 

Son  of  Man,  69,  70,  79 

Sources  of  Luke's  Gospel,  10,  25, 
26,  32 

Sources  of  Mark's  Information,  24, 

25,  33 

Sources  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  34 

Standard  Bible  Encyclopaedia,  In- 
ternational, 130 

Stanton,  17,  109 

Stevens,  30 

St.  Paul  the  Traveller  and  the 
Roman  Citizen,  10 

Stalker,  79 

Strauss,  19 

Streeter,  11,  12,  31 

Studia  Biblica,  30 

Style  of  Mark,  24 

Swete,  13,  14,  21,  22,  30,  32,  ss, 
65,  66,  78,  109,  132,  135,  136 

Sympathy,  Ministry  of,  90 


Synoptic  Problem,  9,  10,  11,  12, 

16,  19-34 
Synoptiker  Handcommentar,  29 

Talitha  Cum(i),  123 
Talmud,  89,  93,  97 
Teaching  of  Jesus  in  Mark's  Gos- 
pel, 108-121 
Teaching  with  Note  of  Authority, 

83 

Tempted  like  other  Preachers,  81 

Tertius,  37 

TertulHan,  23,  38 

Test  of  a  Great  Preacher,  89 

Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, 132,  135,  138 

Theistic  Evolution,  50 

Theology  of  the  Gospels,  66 

Theophilus,  29 

Thompson,  55 

Thomson,  92 

Thucydides,  28,  41 

Torrey,  C.  C.,  32 

Trench,  97,  98 

Two-Document     Hypothesis,     9, 

Understanding  Children,  89 
Universality  of  Jesus,  92 
Ur-marcus  Theory,  15,  16,  20,  2,Zi 

62 
Ur-markuSy  14 

Vernacular  Koine,  137 
Victor  of  Antioch,  21,  131 
Victor  on  the  Cross,  76-78 
Vivid  Details  in  Mark,  43,  64 

Warfield,  50,  135,  138 

Washington  Manuscript,  132,  134 

Weinel,  48 

Wellhausen,  10,  11,  13,  31,  32 

Wendland,  50 

Westcott,  26,  109,  134 

Western  Class  of  Manuscripts,  135 


146 


INDEX 


Whateley,  78 

Williams,  14 

Winstanley,  118 

Wit  of  Jesus,  94,  104 

Wonder  Worker,  Jesus  the,  18,  55 

Woods,  30 

Worsley,  118 


Wright,  A.,  26,  3$ 
Wright,  T.  H,  51,  52 
Wunkhaus,  95 

Xenophon,  37 

Zahn,  9,  II,  12,  22,  23,  29,  36,  37 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


'T^HE  following  pages  contain  advertisements  of  a 
few  of  the  Macmillan  books  on  kindred  subjects. 


The  Course  of  Christian  History 

By  W.  J.  McGLOTHLIN,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Church  History  in  the  Southern  Baptist 
Theological  Seminary. 

Cloth,  $2.00 

This  volume  has  been  written  with  a  full  and  accurate  knowl- 
edge of  the  subject  gained  from  study  in  European  Universities 
and  teaching  in  one  of  the  leading  theological  institutions  of  this 
country. 

While  it  is  thoroughly  scientific  in  spirit  and  is  abreast  of  the 
latest  developments,  the  author  has  at  the  same  time  preserved 
that  lucidity  and  simplicity  of  statement  and  style  which  make 
the  book  interesting  and  readable  for  the  general  student. 

"  The  study  of  the  course  that  has  been  taken  by  the  Church 
in  its  extended  life  is  most  interesting  and  fascinating,  when 
guided  by  one  who  is  able  to  speak  as  a  real  master.  .  .  .  The 
growth  and  development  of  the  church  from  its  early  days,  on 
through  the  middle  centuries  and  into  modern  times,  is  por- 
trayed in  a  skillful  and  authoritative  way,  and  much  light  is 
shed  on  the  great  controversies  and  councils,  in  the  develop- 
ment of  doctrines,  the  spread  of  heresies  and  the  expansion  of 
the  life  and  work  of  the  church." — Herald  and  Presbyter. 

"The  volume  is  different  from  the  general  run  of  church  his- 
tories. ...  It  is  readable,  interesting  and  informing.  The  book 
is  intended  primarily  for  college  students  and  is  well  adapted 
to  this  use.  .  .  .  The  book  is  also  well  adapted  to  the  use  of 
Bible  classes,  mission  study  classes,  etc.,  and  could  be  used  by 
them  to  great  profit.  ...  Dr.  McGlothlin  has  done  a  splendid 
piece  of  work  in  this  volume  and  made  a  real  contribution  to 
the  literature  on  the  history  of  Christianity.  We  wish  for  this 
book  a  wide  reading." — Review  and  Expositor. 


Psychology  and  Preaching 

By  CHARLES  S.  GARDNER 

Cloth,  i2mo.    Price  $2.00 

*' Psychology  and  Preaching"  is  a  thorough  study  of  the 
more  important  mental  processes  involved  in  preaching, 
from  the  standpoint  of  functional  psychology. 

After  a  discussion  of  the  general  mental  processes — ^in- 
tellectual, emotional  and  voluntary — as  they  function  in 
preaching,  it  takes  up  first  the  psychic  phenomena  of  the 
mass  as  they  appear  in  assembly  and  conununity  groups; 
second,  three  important  occupational  types,  the  minister, 
the  laboring  man  and  the  business  man;  third,  the  "modem 
mind"  or  the  pecuhar  mental  attitudes  of  modem  men  as 
contrasted  with  the  characteristic  attitudes  of  more  primi- 
tive men.  The  book  should  be  especially  helpful  to  minis- 
ters, as  well  as  of  service  to  all  who  are  interested  in  present 
day  religious  problems. 

Public  speakers  generally  should  find  it  suggestive. 


THE   MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

Publishers         64-66  Fifth  Avenue         New  York 


RELIGIOUS  HAND  BOOKS 

Each  Sixty  Cents 

DEMOCRATIC    CHRISTIANITY:     SOME     PROBLEMS 
OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  THE  DAYS  JUST  AHEAD 

By  FRANCIS  J.  McCONNELL 
"  We    have    in   mind   the   tasks   of   to-day   as   they   confront   the   Christian 
Church,"    writes    Bishop    McConnell. 

GOD'S  RESPONSIBILITY  FOR  THE  WAR 

By  EDWARD  S.  DROWN 
Dr.  Drown  discusses  this  very  interesting  question  in  terse  and  vigorous 
prose. 

THE  TWENTIETH  CENTURY  CRUSADE 

By  LYMAN  ABBOTT 
Written  by  one  who  has  an  exultant  faith  that  never  in  the  history  of  the 
past  has  there  been  so  splendid  a  demonstration  of  the  extent  and  power  of 
the   Christ   spirit   as  to-day. 

THE  WAY  TO  LIFE  by  henry  Churchill  king 

A  discussion  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  similar  to  that  in  Dr.  King's 
former  book  The  Ethics  of  Jesus.  Besides  rewriting  them,  he  has  added 
material  on  the  war  and  the  teachings  of  Jesus. 

IT'S  ALL  IN  THE  DAY'S  WORK 

By  henry  CHURCHILL  KING 
"  Good  bracing  council  ...  a  book  for  all  who  wish  to  acquit  themselves 
well  in  the  battle  of  life."—  The  Dial. 

THE  BEST  MAN  I  KNOW         by  william  DeWITT  hyde 

"  All  the  virtues  and  the  graces  that  make  for  fine  quality  of  life  are 
included.  They  are  presented  with  a  vigor  that  is  like  the  sting  of  salt 
winds,   bracing  and  wholesome." — •  Cliristian  Register. 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  MAN  by  donald  hankey 

"  Filled  with  the  wise  sincerity  of  a  religious  conviction  that  cares  little 
for  creed  and  miracle,  that  finds  the  whole  vade  mecum  of  life  in  the  simple 
facts   of  Christ's  active  work  among  men." — Boston   Transcript. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  MAN,  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  WAR 

By  ROBERT  E.  SPEER 
Dr.   Speer  here  discusses  the  essentials  of  a  problem  which  has  exercised 
Christian  men  since  the  beginning  of  the  war.     He  deals  with  it  sanely  and 
in   a  manner  that   will   be  considered   distinctly  helpful. 

NEW  HORIZON  OF  STATE  AND  CHURCH 

By  W.  H.  p.  FAUNCE 
"  Broad,    profound    scholarship,    close    relationship    with    progressive    senti- 
ment  all   over    the   land,   and   unusual   powers   of   keen   analysis   and   graphic 
statement  are  forceful  elements  in  The  New  Horizon  of  State  and  Church. 
— -Philadelphia  North  American. 

THE  WAR  AND  THE  BIBLE  by  h.  d.  enelow 

Contents:  —  The  Spiritual  Problems  of  the  War;  The  Attitude  of  the 
Bible  Toward  War;  The  Ethics  of  War  in  the  Bible;  Some  Great  Wars  of 
the  Bible;  Heroes  of  War  in  the  Bible;  The  War  Poetry  of  the  Bible;  War 
Prayers  in  the  Bible;  Parallels  to  the  Present  War  in  the  Bible;  The  Ideal 
of  Peace  in  the  Bible. 


"  The  Best  Bible  Commentary  for  the  General  Bible  Student." 

The  Bible  for  Home  and  School 

Edited  by  SHAILER  MATHEWS,  D.D.,  Dean  of  the  Di\dnity  School  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Chicago 
OLD  TESTAMENT 
GENESIS         By  H.  G.  MITCHELL.  idTno,  $  .90 

"Earlier  volumes  of  this  series  have  been  commended  by  us.     Genesis  is  even  more 
comprehensive. " — Cumberland,  Presbyterian. 
THE  BOOK  OF  DEUTERONOMY        By  W.  G.  JORDAN.    i6tno,  $  .75 

"A  clear  and  accurate  commentary  on  one  of  the  most  important  books  of  the  Old 
Testament." — Western  Theological  Seminary  Bulletin. 
THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES      By  EDWARD  LEWIS  CXJRTIS.     i6mo,  %  .75 

"Precisely  the  kind  of  commentary  needed  by  private  students  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  teachers  of  Bible  classes." — Congregationalist. 

THE  BOOK  OF  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ISAIAH 

By  JOHN  EDGAR  McFADYEN.  i6mo,  $  .90 

"In  ISAIAH  we  have  the  results  of  a  ripe  scholarship,  literary  clearness  and  spiritual 

emphasis.    The  author  is  a  Biblical  critic  of  the  best  kind." — Northern  Christian  Advocate. 

THE  BOOK  OF  JOB  By  GEORGE  A.  BARTON  i6mo,  $  .90 

'*  With  a  touch  too  artistic  to  permit  him  to  descend  to  homily  the  poet  shows  that  his 

solution  of  life's  problem  is  a  religious  one." — (Author.) 

THE  BOOKS  OF  AMOS,  HOSEA  AND  MICAH 

By  JOHN  ^I.  POWIS  SMITH.  i2mo,  $  .75 

"Biblical  readers  owe  to  Dr.  Smith  a  very  useful  commentary  on  these  interesting 
prophetic  books." — Auburn  Seminary  Record. 

NEW  TESTAMENT 

THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MATTHEW 

By  a.  T.  ROBERTSON.  i6mo,  $  .60 

"The  best  brief  commentary  on  the  first  Gospel,  scholarly  and  religious,  sound  of 
doctrine,  reverent  in  spirit,  and  withal  usable  to  the  average  man  who  will  find  it  in- 
structive and  stimulating." — Biblical  Recorder. 

THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  MARK 

By  M.  W^  JACOBUS.  i6mo,  $  .75 

"The  volumes  of  this  series  make  admirable  text  books,  Just  the  right  line  of  informa- 
tion is  given  for  the  average  student  and  Bible  reader,  and  it  is  given  in  the  most  usable 
fashion." — Christian  Endeavor  World. 

ACTS  By  GEORGE  HOLLEY  GILBERT.  i6mo,  $  .75 

"His  volume  on  ACTS  is  a  multtim  in  parvo,  brief,  sensible  and  to  the  point." 

— Lutheran  Quarterly. 

THE  EPISTLE  OF  PAUL  TO  THE  GALATIANS 

By  B.  W.  bacon.  i6mo,  $  .50 

"No  commentary  gives  a  better  exposition  in  so  brief  a  compass." 

— Reformed  Church  Review. 

THE  EPISTLES  TO  THE  COLOSSIANS  AND  TO  THE  EPHE- 

SIANS  By  GROSS  ALEXANDER.  i6mo,  $  .so 

"Judging  from  the  volumes  that  have  appeared,  the  general  editor  of  these  commen- 
taries has  been  very  successful  in  getting  commentators  who  have  the  skill  so  to  treat 
the  books  of  the  Bible  that  they  come  to  the  men  of  to-day  with  vital  power." 

Boston  Transcript. 

THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS 

By  EDGAR  J.  GOODSPEED.  i6mo,  $  .50 

"Free  from  elaborate  discussions  and  arid  controversy." — Homiletic  Review. 


Publishers         64-66  Fifth  Avenue         New  York 

THE    MACMILLAN   COMPANY 


BS2585.8.R64 
Studies  in  Mark's  Gospel, 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1   1012  00013  6434 


DATE  DUE 

/«r-«t;«»0^^^ 

eSO.. 

'*^*^. 

npmrn  Inr  .^fl-9Qr^ 


